new Magico speakers the Q5

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.

If anyone has specific information about production costs and margins, I would appreciate being educated. For example, the Isis uses tweeters that retail for $9000. The mid-range retails for $1100 and the woofers are over $2000 before any modifications. Avalon may not pay quite that much, but that provides a ballpark for just a few material costs. How much is it for aluminum and cones made out of the same material as helicopter blades?

Of course, cost is different from value. Does it make sense to use diamonds in a speaker? What is the price:performance? I feel they are sublime; other would also be correct to regard them as silly. High cost material should be used as a means to an end, not as a means in and of itself. You could build a speaker out of gold and carved ivory, but why?

Magico is definitely a polarizing brand, as this and other threads clearly demonstrate. There are other polarizing companies in audio. My opinion is that the etiology of the strong feeling is partly based upon cost. I feel that Magico is over-priced by about 1/3. I heard the V3, and it did not make a sound commensurate with the price. That statement is subjective. Couple that to the marketing of extreme-fi speakers. Alon Wolf proclaims himself a musical genius, and he not only went into speaker design because a passion, but because the audio industry needed him. His interviwes spew of self-promotional and condescending non-sense. Excuse me while I tighten the loose screws on my wooden speakers... I am sure that aluminum speakers will become the norm in 10 years because 'MDF is the worst possible material for use in a speaker'. Perhaps the violin should also be made of aluminum, so we can really hear the energy from those strings? Finally, all the proclamations of 'the best', even though we all know there is no such thing. Mr. Wolf speaks with vanity, disrespect, and lacks humility. After all, he designs speakers 20 hours a day because he cannot live with anyone else's speaker.

All audio companies seek positive press, good interviews, and hyped-up websites/brochures. There are many examples, and Magico is far from unique. It really does not bother me, since we have free will to tune-in to that which we choose. If Magico is successful in selling speakers, then more power to them. After all, we vote with our pocket books. A company is free to price a product at the margin they desire, and there are plenty of choices in this competitive market. Well-informed and passionate audiophiles may find the sound they desire, and feel the value is there. I totally respect their reasoning. My past threads have even suggested that people looking for a quality speaker should have a listen. If it were not for the Isis, the M5 would be on my short-list to consider. However, I will admit the $90k price is extremely difficult with life's other priorities.

Why does Roypan have an intense desire for everyone to regard his speakers as the best? I personally do not care whether others like my speaker. A speaker is a personal thing, and a designer deals with a set of trade-offs, limitations, and realities. I looked carefully for criticisms before purchasing, and respect well-informed opinions. At these prices, you have to be critical. Many have commented on their distaste of the Avalon sound, and that is perfectly legitimate. I have never told anyone that my speaker is the best, that they should buy the same speaker as I, or put them down for not having the same opinion. There are many Magico owners who are reading this thread, laugh, think "who cares", and go enjoy their music. Please let us not talk about big egos and thin skins here, as that is just nonsense.

Although I chose not to purchase Magico, I appreciate a speaker which takes a new approach and has a definite philosophy. I am always open to hearing new things, and purchase speakers not based upon the strong personality of a designer, but based upon the sound. In the end, we all work hard for our money, appreciate good things, and buy items that bring enjoyment. As an audiophile, I would love the opportunity to listen to a well set-up M5 or Q5. If the Q5 is a true full-range speaker, which can convey the sense of scale and proportion of orchestral music, then I may even be interested. In that regard, I honestly hope that the Q5 is a breakthough speaker, and if so, wish it all the luck.

"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?"

This is pretty deep, but do we really need Searle to have a discussion about whether the speakers are good value relative to plausible competitors? John