Magico Q1 ...
 

Any feedback on the Q1's? Has anyone listened to the little brother to the big guys?

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magico-q...e-first-review

Jonathan Valin compares to the TAD CR-1's ...
 

Jonathan Valin -- Sat, 09/03/2011 - 19:56

Peter,
How the Q1s compare to the TAD CR-1s is an interesting question that I can’t answer conclusively because I’ve never compared them side-by-side in my own system. However, I do have some educated guesses.
First, though stand-mounted, the CR-1s are large (larger than the original Mini, actually), three-way, ported loudspeakers, with a concentric 1.4" beryllium tweeter and 6" beryllium midrange and a separate 8" tri-laminate woofer. The Q1s are classic, tiny, two-way, sealed-box mini-monitors, with a 1" beryllium tweeter and a newly developed 7" NanoTec carbon-fiber/Rohacell sandwich mid/woof.
Although I’m not at all sure whether the CR-1 goes deeper into the bottom octaves than the astonishingly deep-reaching Q1 (or goes down there as flatly), it does have more oomph (better power-handling) in the mid-to-low bass than the Qs, but then you would expect that from a loudspeaker that is reproducing the low-frequencies with a separate driver. Typically, port-loaded speakers have an audible plateau in the midbass (followed by a steep roll-off below the port resonance frequency). The CR-1 was extremely well behaved in this regard: In my space, it didn’t lump up the midbass and generate 60-80Hz room resonances as so many ported speakers have done. I attributed this difference to three factors: 1) the CR-1 is an extremely well-engineered loudspeaker (Tad’s Andrew Jones is one very smart cookie); 2) the CR-1’s tri-laminate composite woofer and its aerodynamically designed port are well implemented; 3) though considerably larger and more complex than the Q1s, the stand-mount CR-1s are relatively small and flexible compared to typical three-way floorstanders and because of this size/flexibility advantage they can be placed much farther out into rooms (away from room boundaries, including the floor), just as the Q1s can, greatly reducing room interactions. I would call the bass frequencies of the two speakers a wash: with smooth extension and possibly a jot more resolution and very slightly lower distortion going to the Q1s, and a bit more dynamic range, slightly higher SPL-levels, and a touch more sheer excitement to the CR-1s. Which you’d prefer would depend on you, the music you listen to, the room you listen in, and how loudly you play. Quite honestly, both speakers are unusually good in the bottom octaves (and in the Q’s case, this is miraculous).
Though both the CR-1 and the Q1 use beryllium tweeters, going on memory I wouldn’t say that they sound alike in the upper-mids and treble. Perhaps because of its coincident driver arrangement (and separate midrange driver), the CR-1 focuses instrumental and vocal images a bit more tightly than the Q1 (i.e., it has slightly better definition). However, although it’s not a miniaturizing speaker, I don’t think the CR-1 is quite the Q1’s equal in natural image height, and I would have to say (going on my notes and on memory, again) that its tweeter stands out more than the Q’s does (once again, the blend of tweet/mid drivers in the Q1 is the most seamless I’ve heard in a mini—or any cone speaker). As a result the CR-1 is brighter than the Q1, though let me quickly add that this is not a harsh, aggressive kind of brightness. On the contrary, the CR-1’s little bit of added treble energy makes everything in the upper frequencies sound more sparkly, airy, lit-up, and exciting. Strictly speaking, this is probably a coloration, but it’s a mighty damn appealing and lifelike one. The Q1s treble is, as noted, a tad (excuse the pun) better integrated, smoother, at least as high in resolution (probably higher), and also very dynamic and exciting. Once again, I think which presentation you’d prefer will depend on you and your music. Both are superb in the top end.
In the midband, I would have to give a very slight edge to the Q1, which (once again going on memory and notes) is a bit more neutral (actually, I think it is more neutral top to bottom). By comparison, the CR-1 sounds just a little “darker” in balance. Both are animals when it comes to low-level resolution—you’re not going to miss any timbral or textural details with either speaker. As with the treble and the bass, the CR-1 may be a little bit more exciting—slightly richer in tone color, slightly weightier, and seemingly more dynamic—than the Q1 throughout the midrange, but I can’t honestly say that this added color, weight, and energy makes the CR-1 sound more realistic. On the contrary, the Q1 reproduced Joan Baez’s voice (and other vocalists and instruments) with a delicacy, see-through-transparency, and you-are-there realism that I’ve only heard before through ’stats, the Maggie 3.7s, the Q5s, and in a concert/recital hall. I’m guessing here, but I think the Q1’s aluminum cabinet may be storing a bit less energy than the TAD CR-1’s MDF cabinet, and thus is adding less spurious energy and color to the presentation.
The bottom line here is not a simple one. If you put a premium on loudness, tonal richness, dynamic oomph, image focus, soundstaging, and sheer sonic excitement—and at the same time want a very high degree of detail, transparency to sources, and lifelike realism—the CR-1s are very hard to top in a stand-mount. If, on the other hand, you put a premium on neutrality, detail, transparency to sources, a seamless disappearing act, soundstaging, and lifelike realism—and at the same want a very high degree of excitement, dynamism, and focus, to boot—the Q1s cannot be beat in a two-way package by anything else I’ve auditioned. Obviously I am a big fan of both of these speakers.
The CR-1s are $15k more than the Q1s, if money’s a factor.

I have listened to both the Q5 and Q1 at RMAF. Both times I came away unimpressed. Don't get me wrong like many other speakers they do nothing that stands out as being wrong. They just did not get you involved in what was playing.

With the Q1' s I even asked them to play some real music. He asked me to come back the next morning and he would play some vocals tracks. Nice, but there were much better systems to be head.

In general I like what I have heard from other aluminum speakers (Krell Modulari Duo's and some YG's) so I was expecting much more.

JIm

Thanks Jim. It's always nice to get some perspective. I love the CR-1's and can't see it getting any better.

Joe
I really question Jonathan Valin's high praise for these speakers. It is time TAS gets someone else to review high end products.

Jim

I could not agree more.

Hi guys,

The Q1 got an incredible review in the uk mag, hifi+ - Alan Sircom reviewed them.

In essence, he deemed them game changing.

I listened to the Q1s at RMAF. The first time I did not like them. They were being played way too loud with some strange music. Came back on Sunday and they sounded much better - more relaxed, with good top to bottom extension. However, at that price point, one can get a very good full range speaker - e.g. Salon 2s, Sashas to name just a few.

Mike

I've heard the Q1's and Q3's in the same system(not mine) and I can say I thought the 1's sounded the better of the two. Smoother, more defined and a 3D image that was outstanding. The 3's might not have been completely broken in but I'm thinking they had a few 100 hours on them.....

I've listened to the Q1 a couple times and they blew my mind. How can such a big beautiful sound be coming out of a small bookshelf-sized speaker? The CR-1 always impresses me, and the Q1 is amazing for it's size. When it gets this good then it's all a matter of personal preference, and personally I could easily live with either speaker and feel quite fortunate...

That's been my experience, too. They're both fantastic speakers.

While I understand your sentiment, I think the Q1 is a response to the audiophile who lives in a Manhattan sized apartment with limited space - or who is subject to the whims or wishes of the wife or interior decorator- and wants great sound in a small box.

Very good point Myles.

In the process of buying new speakers I went to audition the Q1s today.

Regarding construction quality I was very impressed. Really high quality build and materials. These speakers have a pro / high end / luxury look and feel.

Regarding sound I'm impressed with the detail and resolution on the mids and highs.

Lows are detailed but lack power / impact. A bit shallow.

For me these speakers are like a high quality luxury salad. Healthy and beautiful but not as exciting as a great steak.

After the audition I ordered the VividAudio B1.

Congratulations on the new Vivid Audio B1's :banana:

Photos when you get them. Enjoy!

Thanks Joe, I'm excited with the B1. I'll keep you posted with pictures and impressions.

Wow Pedro, congrats!
You'll have one of the finest standmounts in the world!
They made me fall in love with Vivid Audio, after a long journey of listening to different high end speakers.

http://www.onahighernote.com/images/...earl_small.jpg

Congrats Pedro !
Wonderful !

Sent from my iPhone using A.Aficionado

Thanks guys! I'll have the B1 in two weeks. I'll start a new thread to share my impressions.

Congratulations Pedro! I heard the B1s at RMAF last year. They were being driven by Luxman electronics. Sound can be described in one word - impressive!

Mike

Thanks, Mike.

It's great to have this specialists group enthusiasm as support. Particularly after having committed the order with a bank funds transfer :D

You know... these will be my first "relevant" speakers. I have chosen carefully but lacking know-how it would have been easy to make a big mistake without this forum advise.

I'm planning to have these driven by Ayre 5 series preamp and power amp. This is still not committed and I can reassess should anyone think it's not a good choice.

Pedro

Pedro, I heard them with Ayre MX-R's (and an AR pre amp) and it sounded wonderful.

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...91323807_n.jpg

Q1 review here

Thanks a lot Bart! You have been most helpful during my selection process.

I'll migrate this B1 conversation to yours "AA Factor and Vivid Audio" thread and keep you posted with developments.

We should leave some space for the Magico Q1 to breath on this thread :D

:thumbsup:

You should. There are no comparison between the two. You are comparing a 4 door Infinity to a Lotus Elise. Both have their place . Just posted:
Magico Q1 Loudspeakers (Hi-Fi+ 89) | AVguide
and
Magico Q1 Loudspeakers

I recently listened to the Q3s for an extended period at a dealer's showroom, and, while I was there, to the Q1s briefly. I agree with Valin's comments about the TAD CR-1 being a little brighter than the Q1, but I also think it gives a more robust presentation of music.

All three of these speakers are excellent, and if you've only heard them at shows (as I had previously), you have not heard them at their best. If you're looking for a neutral speaker that will reflect exactly what is being presented up the chain, I'm not sure you can do better than either of the Magico speakers, unless you go further up the Magico chain.

This doesn't take anything away from other excellent manufacturers such as Vivid, Sonus Faber, Dynaudio, Focal, YG, etc. You may not like the Magico sound, but if you come to a conclusion based solely on what you've heard at shows, I think you're making a mistake. And I believe that's probably true for most audio products.

Jon,

How do you feel the bass on the CR-1's compares to the Q1? Do you feel they are close? In my room, the CR-1's have plenty of bass.

Thanks!

I'd say very close, and a lot will depend on the rest of the system. And the room, of course.

I understand all the negative comments about Magico, and I've never heard them sound great at shows with Soulution. I have heard them sound very good to great with other equipment, so there must be some other reason Soulution is always used. And the Q3s really were remarkable at the NY dealer. That demo made me understand why so many reviewers were calling them "game changing".

I think poor show performance is a common problem. For example, I first heard the Amati Futuras at a show, and I thought they were dreadful. I heard them at another show, months later, not much better. But then I heard them at a dealer, and I thought they were extremely good. Not for me, but I can respect and admire them, and I understand why someone would purchase them over Magico. Looks alone might sway some people as I think they're one of the most beautiful speakers I've seen.

At this level of performance, and price, it's all about individual preference. I think you made a great choice. Really, anything that makes you happy is a great choice, right? And when I get the Qs, you can bring your CR-1s up to Vermont to compare.

I think the Q1's are smaller :D

Thanks for the comments. Yes, the CR-1's satisfy big time :thumbsup:

Q1s are definitely smaller, but they're both damn heavy with the stands.

Based on SS measurements the B1 starts to roll-off at 100Hz and at 20Hz they are 30db down! I am pretty sure the Q1 has better bass extension. It is typical in the audio world for people to misperceive exaggerated mid bass with bass. The entire staff of Stereophile does that all the time

I heard the Q1's in a large room (approx 25x20x12) and the bass was pretty impressive
In the same room I heard the Q3's. In many ways the 1's were more defined and realistic.
And they played louder than needed!
The 3's obviously had better bass.....
The 1's also are much more interesting to look at.

Sounds like you're leaning toward Q1s. My room is smaller than your demo room, and I'm having trouble deciding as well, although the significant price difference will probably clinch it. I also plan to listen to the S5 before making up my mind.

Do the 1s and 3s image and soundstage the same? What does one get going the Q3 route over the Q1 other than better bass?

So, anyone heard the Q1 and CR-1s ?

That is something you'll have to determine for yourself
For me, the one room I heard both in, the 1's image were much more realistic.
And the 3's bass weren't that much better although they were more fleshed out but not to a defining point for me. I would need more time with both to really decide between the two..

I agree with all of the foregoing, and I think the S5 may be promising as well. If one can get over paying so much for a stand-mount, the Q1 is an unbelievable speaker.

I have heard them both but only in the rooms at RMAF. I want to like the Q1's but they left far too much to be desired at least in that environment. From what I heard I would take the CR1's over all but a handful of speakers, no matter the size.

Jim

Any Q1 users on AA?