http://www.stereophile.com/images/ar...110MQ5fig4.jpg

Fig.4 Magico Q5, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in MF's listening room (red), and of Wilson MAXX 3 (blue).

Interesting. Why would an angular baffle be better than a rounded one? What is that 10” rule, never heard of that. Looks to me that the further the diffraction will be the better, so I would think that you want to have a wider baffle, not a narrow one :scratch2:

Not so ..... and a rounded baffle has angles .............:smoking:

I see… Well, I don’t see any diffraction related dips in any Magico products measurements :no:

Good angularity is Avalon as an eg, notice narrow baffle high/mid....... :smoking:

I agree with Rlacoste, technology has moved on and it is now possible to design drivers with the same acoustic center to achieve time coherency in a flat front baffle. One obvious example is Accuton's new 'Cell Concept' drivers which have been designed for that very purpose and well utilized in Avalon's new Compas loudspeaker which employs a flat front baffle. And yes, Avalon use a sculpted cabinet which does improve sound staging, but the smaller cabinet volume and use of small Accuton bass drivers results in poor bass performance.

The Magico drivers are very very good. They operate in perfect piston motion like Vandersteen, are time coherent in a flat front baffle, have very low distortion and wide bandwidth. Also Magico speakers are perfectly phase coherent as well.

I have heard the Wilson Alexia's on two occasions, the last in a treated room with ARC Reference amps and front end. To me the Magico S5's sound better balanced, smoother and more enjoyable. I posted these comments in another thread - "The separation from the cabinet's modular design is evident, and the speakers sound coherent in regard to timing. The midrange is quiet good and the overall presentation has a live venue kind of feel. But I thought the bass was spongy, the cabinet resonates and the top end sounds thin. When the bass drivers are working, you can actually hear the cabinet resonance. I thought the B&W 802D's playing in another room sounded better & cost much less"

Ok , just to be clear , i have no skin in this game none are my speakers, my discourse is technical and in favor of nor directed at any product in particular .

aside ,

You cant twist or improve physics David , the magico speakers are not time coherent , this is obvious if you look at their impulse response, one still has to compensate for the 38mm difference , you can do so physically or electrically , imo physically is the best way, you cant design that into the drivers .....

Now, all the science dont add up to a can of beans when your preference is subjective , if you favor the sound of one over the other then yeah , but let it not be for some phooby dust scientific reason, this is where we disagree, if you are hearing the modules then the speaker is poorly adjusted.

The bass maybe spongy , but could the spongy bass be due to the ARC amplifiers ? the room ? Personally I'm not a big fan of sealed enclosures finding them low on attack , we all have different level of tolerances and expectations when listening to reproduced music , its natural to choose what you percieve as being correct , but making silly claims as to cheap xover parts and pistonic tweeter actions as being scientific revelations as to why one sounds better than the other, is , well ....


:)

Ps: what is meant by a thin top end .....?

Wayne, I think you should spend more time listening and less time reading measurements :yes:

I'm sure i have done alot more listening than you think David, but in all my years i have never heard of a thin top end, could you explain ....:scratch2:

Do you think the tube ARC amps had a problem driving a 2ohm load with a 70 deg phase angle..?
Spoongy tooob bass...?


I'm all ears sir ........... :thumbsup:

I think I am going to nominate this as the most inane thread in the almost four year history of AA. Congratulations !!