Magico Q7 . . . wow

It will be interesting if Jeff Fritz does review the Q7. He is maybe the most outspoken (in a good way) of the reviewers that do the big speakers. I see where he likes Rockport and TAD along with Magico. Very good brands he likes.

Jeff will do an extensive review of the Q7+Gryphon.
Since he had the Q3 in his room, I hope we will get a comparison of what the Q7 brings extra.

From one of the Sounstage articles on CES2012.....
"The point here is that these new ultra-powerful magnets have allowed Magico to design and build drivers so efficient that the overall sensitivity of the Q7 is rated at 94dB, which is quite high for a sealed-box design."

Now, see, I really respect a lot of what Magico does. But this quote just frustrates me. What's left to respect about the writer when you look deeper into the truth?!

Magico obviously uses the 1W method of measuring their SPL for marketing reasons. (See Stereophile measurements of Q5 as a reference.) This means that their ACTUAL sensitivity is more like 91dB. This is still on the higher side of average. And still much higher than the Q5. But it just proves that the writer isn't remotely experienced enough to be making the claims he does.
For the record. It was almost 20 years ago (Long before Neodymium was being used) that Dunlavy was getting true 91dB sensitivity from cheap, off the shelf drivers, that used plain old and typical magnet materials. It was also a sealed box design.
Note: I'm not endorsing Dunlavy here. Just using them as an example in making a point.

This kind of BS just makes me roll my eyes and wonder why I even bother with "high end" stuff.

Prdprez,

Not sure if intentionally or not, but i think you are confusing issues with issues here. A typical Dunleavy design had a symmetrical (BMTMB) layout. By that alone you get 6db boost in system efficiency, not drivers. BTW, In Magico propaganda, they mainly talk about redaction in “Eddy Current” and inductance, not increase in efficiency.

Usermanual,
The vertical symmetrical array is not what gives the boost, per se. It's the doubling up of drivers. Depending on where the microphone is set-up when measuring, the location of those drivers is irrelevant.
Even then, it's only 3dB, not 6dB.
VSAs do achieve their optimal performance at the point where all the drivers integrate. For the Dunlavy, this was 10ft. Even so, you're only talking about -1dB differences when measuring significantly closer than this.

With regards to Magico, changing to stronger magnets (This is precisely what higher grades of neodymium does.) does not change eddy currents so much. It's the shape of the magnet and it's structure that effect this. Stronger magnets are useful in 1)overcoming heavier diaphragms, 2)Overcoming stiffer compliance of driver suspension. Thats it.

Even so, comparing the Q5 and the Q7, the only obvious difference is a slightly larger Midbass unit as well as a pair of larger woofers. Ie. the Q7 is moving more air than the Q5. This by itself does not equate to the significantly increased sensitivity. For a given driver, heavier (Ie. larger) diaphragm = lower sensitivity. Thus the need for stronger magnets.

Regardless, none of this has to do with my point. The point of my last entry was the relative ignorance of the press which seemed was assigning cause/effect relationships regarding the Q7 that were more or less not relevant.
I have not doubts that the Q7 is better than the Q5, in an overall sense. But, as I originally stated, I believe these differences are probably more relative to the associated room and it's bass coupling, not breakthroughs in driver technology and what not. The two speakers are still going to sound more similar in sound than not.