Do distortion 's affect enjoyment of speaker?

Melbguy1, there are no step response measurements for the S5 to verify what you are saying. All their other speakers are not time-coherent so it's reasonable to assume to that the S series would not be. But, like you wrote, I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you on this. Enjoy the speakers...

Bombaywalla, I acknowledge your fair comments. However on the one
hand Magico are telling me the S5's are time coherent, and on the other
you are telling me they are not. One might ask who do you believe? May I
pose this question to you, Is a speaker either time coherent or not? Or can
there be different degrees in between? And are (objective) measurements
more important than (subjective) listening in assessing the overall
coherency of a speaker?

Melbguy1 ... hey man I'm on your side. I think Magicos are industrial art -- not speakers. I think Magico does a heck of a job controlling a lot of speaker design variables that make other speakers mid-fi. But as part of design trade-offs which all designer have to make, Magico elected to use high order x-overs because of the design pluses that it sought to achieve. See Yair Tamman's response above.

But having said all that, and tipping my hat for the Magicos doesn't answer the Q of whether its speakers are time coherent. Phase coherent at the x-overs, .... no doubt. Time coherent. Highly unlikely. Take a look at John Atkinsons's time delay test of the Q5's in Fig. 4 here

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

Do you see how in the time domain the tweeter leads, followed by the mid drivers, and then the slow poke woofers. What this means is that when the sound output from each driver sums, the wave form MUST be distorted over some portions of the frequency spectrum. Roy Johnson's articles do a good job of explaining why this happens and what it means.

In short ... there is time coherence distortion that results in the summed waved form not being completely true to the electrical signal generated by the amp.

Does it sound bad?? Can we detect it? Very controversial issues. My DEQX audition might provide some enlightenment. And I'll report back.

Does this mean that one shouldn't touch Magicos or Revels or Wilsons. Absolutely NOT!! What it might mean is that some really great speakers just may need a little help.

I'll be back.

Cheers.

BIF

P.S. Just a tongue-in-cheek observation. IMO, Wilsons look like 1970s era Dr. Who Dileks. I'd be compelled to take a sonic screw driver to them. OTOH, better to look like a Dilek than a GMA Praying Mantis. LOL

Bifwynne, I understand the general thrust of what you're saying regarding use of high order crossovers, but it's not that simple. I see you pulled out that favorite red herring whenever this subject comes up in Magico discussions; Atkinson's measurements of the Q5. Firstly Magico themselves never claimed the S5 was 100% time coherent (though I suspect it gets close).

Secondly, Q5 was released over 4 years ago and was the first model in the Q series. The S5's crossovers (like Q7) are an evolution of the Elliptical design in the Q5, though obviously tailored for that speaker. You described the 4th order crossover used in the S5's as a design compromise as though the crossover design was a conventional 4th order crossover. It is not. Martin Colloms provided this summary of S5's crossover technology in his review for Hifi Critic -

"Crossovers are tailored to deliver flat pass-band responses with superior and symmetrical phase summation, and faster out-of-band roll-offs using modified 'elliptical’ filters. Copper foil inductors and special Mundorf capacitors are used", and further noted in conclusion - "..it’s clear that the S5 is the product of years of careful research into materials technology, room matching, decay resonance, group delay and distortion control, a concertedly global approach to total loudspeaker system design to try to make the loudspeaker disappear and thus not constitute the usual, recognisable and characterful link in the sound reproducing chain. In achieving this very high standard of natural dynamics, very low distortion, vanishingly low coloration, very low fatigue, exceptional transparency and an almost magically powerful, speedy, upbeat bass, the Magico team should be applauded."

With the above said, achieving absolute time and phase coherency does not guarantee good sound as Doug Schneider noted in this article relating to the Soundstage review of the S5's - http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/reader-feedback/668-magico-s5-review-and-time-and-phase-accuracy

Agreed re: Wilson.

08-07-14: Melbguy1
Bombaywalla, I acknowledge your fair comments. However on the one
hand Magico are telling me the S5's are time coherent, and on the other
you are telling me they are not. One might ask who do you believe? May I
pose this question to you, Is a speaker either time coherent or not? Or can
there be different degrees in between? And are (objective) measurements
more important than (subjective) listening in assessing the overall
coherency of a speaker?
Melbguy1

hi Melbguy1
who do I believe? I believe myself & my research & my understanding of the matter.
The S5 are not time-coherent if they use higher order x-over i.e. 2nd order or higher. Period.
Bifwynne's answer/post is exactly correct re. the S5. The use of higher order x-over destroys the phase difference relationship amongst the various frequencies in the audio band 20Hz-20KHz. The physics of using a higher order x-over prevents the speaker from being time-coherent.
Doug Schneider's review of the S5 is a nice read but Doug is not trained in engineering math & physics to understand the subtleties between phase coherence & time coherence. So, I would not latch onto Doug's words & find comfort in them re. the speakers being time-coherent.
Like Bifwynne wrote, you can still buy & like the S5. Just don't call it time-coherent - it's at best phase coherent/phase linear at its x-over frequencies.