Magico S5 vs Tannoy Westminster Royal SE

A QTC of .5 is called transient perfect for a reason - it reproduces transients (ie with the least amount of ringing) the best of any alignment. It is the most accurate - but most people do not like it - it sounds a bit lean and thin. Higher QTC's are not as accurate - ringing more - but sound more real to most people. There is a brain interpreting this stuff - and that is precisely what you are ignoring.

No, I am not ignoring anything, I am explaining, if you care to listen.

All things being equal, a Q of 0.5 (0.577) will start rolling off sooner than a Q of 0.707 (which will give you flat, most extended frq response). So although you will have better performance in the time domain with 0.5, you will not in the frequency domain. That is the reason, that for a sealed box, people prefer the sound of a Q 0.707 alignment, it simply goes lower play louder and interact with the room better. These are all complex problems, that unfortunately can’t be simplified to the level you are trying to portray here. I am glad you have Dickenson’s book, it is a good start (-;

Audio reproduction is not as subjective as so many of you think. If you bother to study a bit about it and about the way the gear you spend so much money on tackle the issue, you will become a much better “listener”, and perhaps have some advice worth giving.

Bravo!

'All things being equal, a Q of 0.5 (0.577) will start rolling off sooner than a Q of 0.707 (which will give you flat, most extended frq response).'

Although I forgot to mention it, because it was I thought reasonably obvious, the tests were done frequency compensated.

Thanks
Bill

Although I forgot to mention it, because it was I thought reasonably obvious, the tests were done frequency compensated.

Would love to read about these tests, could you please point me (us) to their whereabouts?

'Would love to read about these tests, could you please point me (us) to their whereabouts?'

They were done by a speaker designer I know. He also said a number of other designers, such as Dunlavey, did the same tests with the same results.

However even without such formal tests its well known eg its mentioned in Vance Dickensen's book on speaker design.

From an Audiogon discussion on it:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1106229169
'Having said that, many people find a very low static Q ( .5 ) to sound TOO tight and dry, even with the slight boost of Q that occurs during actual driven conditions. Raising the static Q will produce more apparent bass but it does so at a slight loss in transient response. The more that the static Q climbs, the more apparent bass that you have and the worse the transient response gets.'

'Much of this is covered in Vance's book to a great extent. Interpreting the trade-off's involved in each approach becomes a matter of personal design decisions'

If you want to pursue it further get Vance's book. It helped me understand a lot about speaker design such as this issue, although I don't personally build and design speakers.

But it does mean I can have enlightening conversations with those that do, like the guy that told me about those tests.

Thanks
Bill