Magico S5 review

[Ricjor1]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Anyone had a chance to compare the S5 to Alexia and / or Rockport Avior ?

Has anyone had a chance to compare the Avior's or S5's to Sasha's? I compared the Mira II's to Sophia III's and Sasha's and preferred the Wilson's. I've heard two different opinions...if I didn't like the Mira II's, I won't like the Aviors and that the Avior's are significantly better than Mira II's and Sasha's. So much of this is personal taste, without one being clearly superior to the other!

[CLEE]

About 2 months ago, I brought in an S5 and placed it in approximately where I placed the Wilson Sasha. I haven’t made any change to other parts of my system (yet). The overall sonics character of the S5 is of great clarity, transparency and good coherence, with excellent resolution. Relative to the Sasha, the mid-range presentation is similar with good body and liquidity. The Magico seems to have more extended highs and “air” with weak hf events easier to discern. Overall highs and mids were slightly warmer with the Sasha and clearer with the S5, which also has subjectively faster transients. The S5 soundstage seems to have slightly more depth and layers. The bass characters are quite different. The Wilson mid bass is stronger. Grand piano sounded grander through the Sasha than the S5. The S5’s bass while lighter, has better definition with richer tonality and seems to be more coherent to the midrange. To me, W/P bass has never completely integrated with the upper range. In the Watt+ Puppy days, this was limited by the design that the Watt could also function as a stand-alone monitor with its own cross-over. There was a slight discontinuity that was minimized in the W/P 7, 8 generations, and should be gone with the Sasha, but then not quite entirely in my environment. I have heard Sasha’s bass performed better in one of my friend’s room. An advantage of the Sasha is that it has higher sensitivity and should be easier to drive.

Both are excellent speakers and I can live with either. Having listened to Wilson’s sound for most part of the last 10 years, I am just itching for a change. I considered the excellent Magnepan 3.7 seriously for its transients and coherence but backed off due to bass weight. The S5 seems to be able to offer most of the former attributes without having to compromise on the bass.

--Charles

[Ricjor1]

Charles,

Very interesting comments. Did you purchase the S5's? Have you ever heard the Rockport Aviors? If so, what are your thoughts?

[CLEE]

Originally Posted by Ricjor1

Charles,

Very interesting comments. Did you purchase the S5's? Have you ever heard the Rockport Aviors? If so, what are your thoughts?

Yes I did. I haven’t heard the Avior. I heard the Altair couple of times and if the Avior is close, it would be a great bargain.

[Ricjor1]

What electronics do you use to drive the S5's?

[CLEE]

Originally Posted by Ricjor1

What electronics do you use to drive the S5's?

I am using an ASR Emitter II amp (ASR Emitter II Exclusive integrated amplifier | Stereophile.com). Front-end consists of a Rockport air bearing tt+arm and MicroBenz cartridge. I use a Denon SX for sacd/cd playing. I read that Constellation amps match well with Magico (see the Magico S5 thread). I am considering making an appointment to hear the Constellation Centaur driving the S5 at a dealer’s.

[Elberoth]

Charles,

It may be a synergistic combination, as the ASR is a bit on the warm side of things.

What I'm being afraid with the S5s, is that they will end up sounding to lean system, with not enough image density. Kind of all bones and no meat.

Wilson is definately warmer (although not as warm as SF).

[Dafos]

Elberoth, having heard the q series speakers in dealer demos, I was anticipating that they may be a bit lean. After a month at home, I can conclude that the Q and I surmise the S series are anything but lean. Images are dense and flush with flesh, wih excellent rendering of chest tones and I believe it takes one bad amp to make a magico sound lean. However, the Q can tend to be a bit forward in the upper mids and with electronics leaning toward the bright side, I can understand why some listeners find them analytic. It's very difficult to pin the Q's tonal character, sounding warm and cuddly to somewhat forward in the mids depending on the recording. One thing though, the Magicos will never sound boomy, congested, bright or hyper detailed, even when you anticipate that it will sound a certain way with a flawed recording. In short, while the Q is unabashedly transparent to components and recording quality, it never gets to the point where this transparency becomes fatiguing. But if one prefers the tonal balance of a Sonus or a Harbeth, I don't think that type of listener will cotton to the Magico sound.

[Elberoth]

That is why, if anything, I'm considering the S5, which are said to easier on the ear, and hopefully offer more saturated midrange than the Q series.

[dcc]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

That is why, if anything, I'm considering the S5, which are said to easier on the ear, and hopefully offer more saturated midrange than the Q series.

What do you think you're going to get from the S5s, that you're not getting with your Sashas?