Magico Q7's (Eye Candy)

[cubdog]

I'm sure they would sound fine,as long as you don't want to drive them to ridiculous levels.Because they cost $185,000 does that mean they need $185,000 in amplification? Watts is watts right? I would like to hear them with a vintage receiver,maybe some of you would be afraid of what you'd hear.

I guess it might be interesting to try but, to me, it makes little sense. Believe it or not there have been advancements in audio electronics since 1980. An old receiver as good as they may be will not allow these Magicos to perform up to their very high capabilities.

cubdog

 

[Art K.]

I'm sure they would sound fine,as long as you don't want to drive them to ridiculous levels.Because they cost $185,000 does that mean they need $185,000 in amplification? Watts is watts right? I would like to hear them with a vintage receiver,maybe some of you would be afraid of what you'd hear.

I would definitely be afraid of what I would hear...

Watts is watts, really?

 

[JoeESP9]

I guess it might be interesting to try but, to me, it makes little sense. Believe it or not there have been advancements in audio electronics since 1980. An old receiver as good as they may be will not allow these Magicos to perform up to their very high capabilities.

cubdog

Some on AK truly believe there have been no advancements in anything to do with audio since the era of their favorite receivers. I'm not one of them.

 

[sqlsavior]

OTOH, one could argue that there has been virtually no improvement in midrange transparency from a loudspeaker since 1957. I'd put my Quads against these Magicos or any others in that department.

 

[shelly_d]

:thmbsp:

Get the watts, distortion, noise, stability, tranient response right and it doesn't matter how old the amp/receiver is.

Shelly_D

I'm sure they would sound fine,as long as you don't want to drive them to ridiculous levels.Because they cost $185,000 does that mean they need $185,000 in amplification? Watts is watts right? I would like to hear them with a vintage receiver,maybe some of you would be afraid of what you'd hear.

 

[Jeffery]

Just some Eye candy this morning for the superb Audioholics on the forum. :yes:

And just a little nitpic-

Although the title of the thread is Magico Q7, the speakers pictured are not Magico Q7s.

 

[trhee]

Indeed, they're the Q5.

And just a little nitpic-

Although the title of the thread is Magico Q7, the speakers pictured are not Magico Q7s.

 

[blackfly]

First. The photo is the Q5. The Q7 has the midrange up at the top. Get the photo right.

The price is real. I am not sure I understand it or could justify it, but as I bought my lottery ticket an hour ago, I am sure that as an audiophile I would most likely buy the Q7. Get a good look at it and you understand why. The magnet for the midrange driver alone is 100 lbs.

 

[Jeffery]

First. The photo is the Q5. The Q7 has the midrange up at the top. Get the photo right.

It seems to me that, in this type of thread, technical accuracy isn't the prime consideration. It's more along the lines of "LOL look at what those stupid audiophools are wasting their money on this time!"

 

[just dave]

Some on AK truly believe there have been no advancements in anything to do with audio since the era of their favorite receivers. I'm not one of them.

I believe there have been advancements in audio,mainly in speakers,cassette decks,cd players. And while there have been improvements in amps I don't think they warrant the spending of tens of thousands of dollars for those improvements,not for me anyway.

 

[Dr. Morbius]

This poor fella spent so much on his listening room and gear that he has to sit on lawn furniture in order to enjoy it! Now THAT'S dedication. :yes:

If I were to win the lottery, Magicos would be on my short list as there is a dealer in town. They're beautifully made speakers, IMO.