I always like to reason out what's really going on when people have perceptions which can't agree with my own. Daniel will know I already tried, actually no different than I would do on this forum. The forum is more "easy" so to speak because people could take for granted what I say. Still though, I always try to support my "statements" (if I ever have those) with logical reasoning. I am going to do the same here too, with for Daniel the knowledge that it really is not different at all from what I already told him while here, and the fun, this was without my knowledge of his speaker, let alone that I could implictly have referred to that Stereophile review. The more speaking the below should be. Well, that's what I hope.
Let me first tell that I know John Atkinson and he is no fool at all. If he says that a speaker doesn't have the punch etc., it is so. BUT, you'd have to know that he knows what to listen for in order to make such judgement. Like he in there refers to rock to show it (from the Q5).
So there we are. The Q5 lacks low while the MKII does too according to Daniel. Where is the contradiction ?
http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurementsI tried my best to show where low is to be low and where it is not to be that. Thus, reflection to reality. This is a hard thing to do when not knowing the real reality; we should drag in the real basses and such. Still the MKII measures completely flat (+/- 0.5dB up to 19Hz) and now compare with the Q5. What do we see ?
I say Ouch !
If I am as honest as I can be, then I take the avarage "level" between 200 and 6000 Hz and I see a ~2.5dB for that line (with the 0dB line as the reference). This is to be compared with an output at 50-60Hz of 8dB. Uhm, this is 5.5dB More ?!?
If I am less honest (but also more normal) then the average line is at something like 1dB (real rise starting at 300 Hz leftwards) and the difference is thus a sheer 9.5dB.
Are we crazy here ? MKII owners, add 5.5-9.5dB to your bass section and tell me what happens.
But I know, the whole thing will blow itself backwards at a good punch of sound.
Of course, for real comparison only that 50-60Hz area should be boosted. Can be done, but uit will colour as hell.
So ... before we can compare such things, we must first acknowledge that something is the most wrong with the Q5, no matter it may sound very OK. But is it reality ? Well, how can it be.
Now how I read reviews and how you get to learn reviewers :
It is impossible that no notice is made of some superbly high output bass. Well, "superbly" can hardly be in order, but for level it should have been noticed. Still it was not.
But learn to read reviews ...
Where is the distortion plot eh ? It is not there. Why is it not there ? well, me says because it was too poor to show. That is how reviewers work, with the notice they receive gear to review it and no reviewer likes to express badly about that gear because it relates to manufacturers which are people. And why bash on people. Still, what's left out is the explanation how bass does not come forward. But depending on how smart you are (as the reviewer) to leave out things, OR put in things to show you are sure not lying. And while discussing the exact same matter over here last week, this is what I explained :
Any not high passed (for LP) recording, will show a kick drum at ~38Hz that "rolling" all the way to about 20Hz. And this is not the (my) room doing it, because measured from a 2cm distance. It is that (very) low end where the kick in the stomache happens, obviously. Also : A high passed recording will not show a thing of it. Remember, same speaker of course. It's just not in the recording.
Now again look at that plot, and know that any John Atkinson (or me for that matter) *first* seeing that plot, can next see what type of music will work out, and what will not. Also, and this is crucial, envision what the volume know will be tuned to with such a speaker; It will be that 50-60Hz because it is the loudest part. Also (and also crucial) this is where many instruments play. The electric basses and such. And also : this is how the speaker will sound very smooth because the low frequencies will mask the higher ones to a large degree. It's 5.5-9dB higher you know, and this is so much that ... well, what to say.
Anyway, now any electric bass or higher keyed upright bass (up to cello) will be very profound. Nice (but never even for the whole range of the instrument - obviously).
Once you know how the speaker (or the whole lot) measures, you can see that no kick drum (~38Hz) will excel or jump out in the first place because it is 6dB lower than that nice bass playing. So there it starts. Next though there's a very steep roll off and it is right in the area the kick drum likes to play (as said up to 20Hz and this goes in flat fashion !).
Look again at the review; "rated to 29Hz" (similar). Yes ? NO! It is 29Hz if it is related to my mentioned avarage ! Thus, it is 29Hz compared to anything playing in the 200 - 6000 area. It is not 29Hz at all when related to 50-60Hz. And so the bass playing in that 50-60Hz area (but you can make it somewhat broader) is completely masking any kick drum.
And I say it again, only MKII owners know what a difference of already 1dB brings in that area, because it really comes out. Not so with a speaker like this because it will only distort (and I guarantee you that). So instead of the energy given to for example 30Hz it will spread to harmonics like 60Hz (and 90Hz and so on). It is just a stupid fact that it works like that, once you see the plot going as it does. Compare with the MKII's if jou like with further the knowledgs that the super steep roll of beyond 19Hz (leftwards) is there to prevent any 18Hz etc. from turning into 38Hz etc. This is also how the plot gets super straight, would you put up an 18Hz or lower signal and observe what's happening higher up.
If you're almost satisfied with my description of matters, let me also tell you that this plot is highly averaged to maybe 1/2 of an octave which is quite much of averaging. IOW, would it have been done like my plots do (1/12th) than the peak at 50-60Hz would even have been higher and the whole plot more of a mess. Compare with the plot under it where the comparison with the Wilson is made. Even that is already averaged to 1/6th.
Reviews ...
More back to the beginning of this post and my always telling about how distortion fools us :
That low end will show super high distortion. Probably so much that J.A. did not want to show it. But, he justifies that by means of "text" and tells you that you better shouldn't play Rock. But what happens - and I showed that while Daniel was here - is that any distorting low frequency is perceived as an even lower one. You see this happening when a nice sine of say 30Hz is (synthesized) into a more square tone. So first you hear a low sine indeed and which is just perceived by us at a low level because we are not able to hear such low levels so well, and when the harmonics of it (that's what square does) jump in, the first what happens is that we perceive that beter, thus louder. And you know, there is no difference between a sine which is synthesized into a square and a sine which is receiving odd order harmonics because of not being able to do it and thus distorts. It's just the same.
What happens here is different from what I talked about earlier in this post because now any distorting 50-60Hz which is at a too high level to begin with (that 5.5-9.5dB) will show harmonics and you know what ? they are at a lower level (it is just spreading of energy). Now we could say that the Q5 has been designed very smartly, because this blends to a perceived somewhat same level. Think of my often given example of 24Hz we can just hear, and when this distorts you hear 48Hz only and this is only because we perceive 48Hz better than 24Hz. But do this in a smart fashion and the 48Hz will be as loud as the 24Hz. And now you have a nice blend of the both and you think the instrument sounds like that.
Well, I better stop. And anyway, whether I am right or not, this was all already discussed when Daniel was here and then undoubtedly could have come across as stupid theory only. But with now the measurements of the Q5 at hand, I think I did not lie a thing and theories are not so much theory.
Whether this all leads to a better accepted sound (or music) is something else. At least I know with a year of experience with this, that this doesn't bother me at all. The contrary, it is for the better. Sadly though examples exist of things "working" with a normal speaker, now not working any more and this is only because the recording engineer "utilized" the distortion in a speaker to produce the recording. I showed an example of that too, just nothing audible while my old fine speaker showed shaking Whooosh. Now though it appears that the frequency is so low that we can only feel it. Bad luck for that particular track.
Peter
