Magico S5 vs Tannoy Westminster Royal SE

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

They were done by a speaker designer I know...

Who will conduct a worthwhile listening test comparing a “compensated” (eq) signal to a pure one??

BTW, taken from your link:
“Most people that aren't used to "accurate" bass with proper pitch and damping (long time users of vented speakers) should probably use something closer to a static Qtc of .65 or .70 or so”

As Usermanual already pointed out, all things being equal, there are no psychoacoustics reasons to prefer a “compromised” parameter on a “sound” one. However, there may be plenty of psychological reasons to do so.