Magico S1 Mk II - The First Review

"On the positive note, the extra treble also had more treble. That is, it wasn't just a matter of being tilted upwards."

Besides the above kind of ridiculous statement, the author in no way is off putting , considering the fact that it was a totally informal initial evaluation of the speaker. For anyone to take it to heart, however, is a completely different manner. At least he senses.... In his subjective opinion, an initial straying of the speakers neutrality; something most music listeners today would have no clue as to what neutrality actually means!

Being smooth and being flat are two different things. Lots of "high end" speakers have a terrible and inconsistent high end. Wilson, B&W, Focal. Not smooth.

The Magico S1’s did not sound ragged to me at all. In fact it sounded very smooth and extended, just going up. I’m sorry that wasn’t more clear.

Still, as I make abundantly clear, only your own ears should determine what is worth taking out the checkbook for. Whether this is a smile shaped response, flat or whatever. The day that the pundits pay for my speakers I might let them choose them for me, but until then I’ll buy only what I like, I hope you do the same. :)

"The Bottom Line
While these speakers show an incredible amount of craftsmanship, unique designs and high tech cabinetry resulting in small speakers with really amazing output they are not for long term critical music listening. If you truly need speakers to act as transparent windows into a recorded environment that can be listened to for hours and never tire of I think you'll find these speakers too hot and seasoned for your needs unless you have matching hearing loss in which case they may actually be perfect."

The real problem here is that you are making extreme and definitive criticisms and recommendations based on a relatively brief and completely un-thorough audition in a strange environment.  It's really not that unlike any of us hearing unfamiliar equipment in an unfamiliar hotel room at an audio show and proclaiming the speakers as clearly flawed.  Among the myriad of other problems and inconsistencies here, how could you possibly know what you heard was in any way specifically due to the speakers???  It's absolutely impossible.  The fact that you dismiss the limitations of your "review" environment is, to say the least, disconcerting. 

Most of us know how flawed auditioning anything in those types of circumstances is, and, further, how irresponsible it would be to make firm or seemingly authoritative recommendations or assertions to others based on such a limited and compromised experience -- especially negative ones.  If you want to do this type of thing and have any credibility whatsoever, especially among this crowd, make the effort and take the time to borrow equipment from a manufacturer, properly set it up in your own room with your equipment and make sure it's sufficiently broken in.  Then spend a couple months listening to it -- comprising anywhere from 5 - 20 hours of actual critical listening time -- with a wide variety of your own music and then another 5 hours or so consolidating all that gained knowledge and writing a thoughtful, thorough, and comprehensive review.  I know first hand how critical this level of time and commitment is to write anything close to a valid review of someone else's hard and maybe even life's work that might possibly be of some value to audiophiles.  So for you to plop your butt down in a strange chair for a few minutes and spew out a half-ass blog and profess thatit has any credibility as a "review," -- well, let's just say I find the blog worth the effort that went into producing it and an insult to actual reviewers who spend the many, many hours of commitment it takes to produce something that holds out any chance of being even somewhat accurate and potentially useful to buyers. 

And, while we're at it, stop throwing measurements out there like they're proof of anything or that they in any way validate your own individual conclusions or biases.  Any seasoned audiophile knows that, while measurements are certainly important and worth looking at, they often have little to do with how things sound in a real-world environment with all the variables contained therein.  You seem to hold out your version of neutrality -- whatever the hell that is -- as the Holy Grail of audio and that anything else is flawed.  But then you walk it back by saying it's fine if it still sounds good to the hearing-impaired individual.  That's complete condescending bullsh*t.  You seem to think you've identified the end all be all of how things should sound.  Good for you.  Don't villify the rest of us as being hearing impaired because you've possibly found "your curve."  And make no mistake, you have a biased curve just like the rest of us -- you just hold yours out as being "right" and "neutral."  Here's a hint -- there IS no neutral.  And a speaker that measures flat in a lab probably sounds like crap in a real listening room.  But let's leave that aside.  Unless you're recording your own music flawlessly with likewise flawless recording equipment and playing it back with likewise flawless equipment in a flawless room, you have no more idea what "neutral" is any more than the rest of us.  So stop preaching to us that your half-ass "reviews" are in any way rigorous or accurate and that it's ok if us low-lifes think equipment you've deemed flawed might still be good enough for us because our hearing is compromised.  Good luck with that strategy in selling your blog.  I'm sure you'll gain a lot of traction with the more experienced people here with that BS, although I pity the poor newbies who may read your semi-informed, seat-of-the-pants crap and actually think it's worth something.  Then again, you build superior speakers as you and a few of your friends see it, so that's clearly a credible basis for being able to accurately assess speakers on the fly in strange systems.

By the way, I had the opportunity to speak with Alon Wolf one on one at length about speaker design.  Believe it or not he actually sounds like he knows what he's doing, but he's also a reasonable guy and I'm sure he'd be open to you explaining to him and his thousands of audiophile customers why his speakers aren't for long-term listening unless they're hearing impaired.

Best of luck with the blog. 

As most successful speaker companies know, why consumers spend their money is much more complicated than reference grade frequency response. Whether my criticisms are apt or not has little to do with whether Magico will continue to be successful.

I’m amused you took this all so personally, it’s rather funny. As I’ve mentioned many times, buy what you like. If you ask me if the S1 sounds neutral, no I think it’s smooth but a bit bright with a little extra in the mid-bass. You are right, I do have a curve, it’s the B&K curve which I know is a personal preference and used (knowingly or not) by many recording engineers. How do I calibrate my ears? With lab grade instruments and listening to music played live. Does that mean you need feel the same way? No.

Again, I heard those speakers in what I would consider the best possible circumstances.

I think you completely misunderstand the point of the posting. It was not to sit on a Judge’s chair and pass judgement as to whether or not the S1’s were worthy of being called "High End Speakers." It was rather to describe and inform, a foil against the undoubtedly universally positive reviews they’ll get. You contradict yourself, on the one hand, you say that there is no such thing as neutral, and at the same time you seem to be criticizing me for not calling them perfectly neutral. It seems that overall you are upset with me for attempting to describe them as having any sort of tonal characteristic at all.

I think the idea that all speaker buyers are going to sit and listen for hours every night and that is the only measure of a good loudspeaker hogwash. We all have different listening styles and different things we want out of speakers. Some watch more movies, games or have it playing in the background while working. That is the reality of consumers. Far too many buy speakers entirely on price so they can have the speakers parked like a Bugatti in a music room they never actually use. Could I sit and listen to the S1 for an hour playing Jazz at live levels, yikes! Not for me. Could I buy small speakers that take up at least 20 square feet of floor space each? Also, not for me. You clearly took offense that I did not universally praise this brand, and call them all things for all people. They are not, but for many they will be ideal, and for those I say, buy them. :)

By the way, have you even heard the S1 speakers?  It's amazing how much criticism I'm getting from people who have not. 

You're getting criticism precisely because your process is completely flawed.  You don't get it.  You heard the speakers in what YOU WOULD CONSIDER to be the best possible of circumstances.  That means absolutely nothing and lies at the heart of the issue I have with your so-called "review."  The problem is, you have no experience with that room, that equipment, or even the speakers.  Nor do you have any basis of comparison to verify what you heard is representative or is in any way accurate.  Heck, you could've brought your own speakers into that room and maybe they'd even sound bright, but you have no idea because it's a completely unknown situation.  Yet you hold your opinion of what you heard in those completely foreign circumstances as something worthy of potential customers making purchasing decisions.  You said, the speakers are "not for long-term (sic) critical listening."  That is a damning and definitive statement you have no business making under those circumstances.  That you throw in the caveat that people should make their own decisions is irrelevant and besides the point.  You're potentially influencing people's purchasing decisions based on a flawed and an unscientific and unreliable situation.  I heard the Q7s at length with my music in a treated but strange room with over a hundred thousand dollars of electronics driving them that I was likewise unfamiliar with.  But even with all that, I would not presume to have a valid idea of what the speakers sound like because I have no known, reliable, or familiar basis for comparison.  I could certainly relate what I heard, but it's just not valid.  Far too many unknown variables.  And certainly not worthy of telling potential buyers what they actually sound like.  That's the difference.  You honestly think what you heard is what the speakers actually sound like, and that may or may not be the case.  You have no way of knowing, which is what makes this exercise next to useless.  And just to be clear, I have no relationship with Magico whatsoever.  You could've written your blog about any speaker and I would've said exactly the same thing.  I have no doubt that you heard what you heard and are reporting honestly on it, but any audiophile will tell you that the circumstances are at least as important as the equipment you're listening to.  Again, sitting in a chair for a limited time in a strange room with unfamiliar equipment and music is not the basis for a review.  At best, it is an IMPRESSION that should come with all the caveats and limitations of the inherent conditions.  You heard what you heard.  Fine.  At least recognize the limitations of your experience and don't make definitive or anything like authoritative recommendations based on such a relatively brief and completely un-rigorous review process.  If you want to write legit reviews, roll up your sleeves and do the hours of work that it entails.  I could easily go to a number of local audio shops and write "reviews" based on my impressions.  They just wouldn't be worth much and, worse, could be completely misleading because it's just not a valid process for writing an in-depth and/or comprehensive review.  You can keep trying to polish this turd, but it's futile.  It speaks for itself.  There are no shortcuts to writing a comprehensive and actually useful review.