new Magico speakers the Q5

Roypan,

Please define "real" and "value." Do you refer to intrinsic, inherent or instrumental value? Do you refer to social reality or to some objective reality as Searle distinguishes? Is raw material cost the defining characteristic of any product? What about design costs? What about R&D? What about inefficient R&D and production costs? What about lack of statistical quality control that leads to manufacturing inefficiencies and waste that lead to higher prices for the end user? Input side is a part but intermediary steps very much affect outcomes as does the cost of living and working in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I do believe you tread into philosophical depths beyond your erudition when you castigate others who confound valuation with preference. Perhaps some time understanding the philosophical foundations of perception or the vast and growing neuroscientific research into consciousness, emotion, cognition and valuation/valencing will enable you realize that value and the stuff between ones ears are quite intertwined.

In what way has Magico risen to the top? Of what? Is there a hierarchy of loudspeakers that towers above us into the sky, that is there for anyone in the world to apprehend?

a new thread about new speaker Avalon Time also quite expensive ... a couple of months later 6 responses

a new thread about Magico Q 5 ... immediate and many reactions

is Magico better than Avalon ?

I know quite well the Indra, the Sentinell, the V3 and the minis 2 , I think no one from these 2 companies make compromises about quality ... then it's a question of taste. Avalon properly set up works beautifully for classical music. The Sentinel is just marvelous. I was impressed by the minis 2 but have never heard until now a good set up of the V3 (with all top of Krell & MIT a claustrophobic disaster in my point of view, dry...) I wish I could compare the Sentinel with the M5 or Q5

so why is this hapening? all merit of Jonhatan Valin from TAS or ???

PS by the way the swiss company Piega is building since years all aluminium loudspeakers

Classicjazz,

You can rock the boat anyway you like, and use the words “inefficiencies” as many time as possible in one sentence but I wish you would give those of us who did buy the product some credit. Obviously, the competition to Magico products is quite fierce. I am sure, they would have fail miserably if it was built in such a wasteful way your post is implying, or sound as bad as other here are suggesting. And, yes, apparently there is a hierarchy of loudspeakers that towers above us into the sky, you obviously would not be commenting on the Magico’s, if that was not the case.

Hi Roypan,

To what extent have I disparaged your ownership of the Magico or any other product? My primary point is that we should limit our conclusions to those we derive from sound premises using consistent logic.

There are many things we may assume but not test: the fierceness of competition in the marketplace for highend audio speakers; the sociology of knowledge and information dissemination in discursive networks etc.

As for wasteful, you infer that I imply that Magico are wasteful. I did not make that claim. I merely provide an optic by which we might examine our frameworks of reasoning.

And even if Magico were inefficient, which is not the same as wasteful (one imagines a semantic difference in intent), at the price they sell for, if I like them, I would buy them, as I did the V3.

Indeed, many of the factors you allude to in the design and construction of Magico are appealing to me as a layperson who does not purport to know how they work together. However for aesthetic and intuited reasons, the use of materials like aluminum or void-free Baltic Birch is something I can grasp. Indeed, knowledge of similar design and construction components in my Boulder, MBL and Goldmund gear returns the same satisfaction.

On the other hand, although I might have been unfair to single your post out, in truth, as you mention, there are many posts here and in all the Magico and Wilson Audio threads that suffer worse cases of opinion masquerading as fact.

To this extent, I would proffer that an argument can be made for Magico quite well using precisely the aspects of manufacture you refer to without resorting to ad hominem attacks. In fact, I know that you have done exactly this in many other threads across this vapid cyberspace. So ironically, I am with you.

Soldier on.

Roypan,

You say this thread was about the was about the new Q5 and its "real" value proposition. When I look at the OP it mentions nothing about "real value"

Audiogon is ALL about personal opinions - we all have them and clearly yours and mine differs and I agree let's not continue the argument about my views.

I will finish with the comment that you cannot ascribe "real value" in the case of speakers without considering the end user and their listening impressions. You appear to equate real-world value only to build cost and R&D and the such like. If they cost 40k to build and I think they sound ordinary (an example, as I haven't heard the Q5), then to me, they are of little value. I'm quite certain that you also wouldn't purchase a pair of speakers based on their science, materials and cost to build if you didn't like the sound! The "real value" of speakers is different for every listener out there.