| Romy the Cat wrote:|
I do not know what fantasies Tom Martin and Robert Harley had but it looks to me that Magico Ultimate II is very much the same as Magico Ultimate I, the prefix II mean a new round of marketing BS… Here are the pictures of the Ultimate’s installation in Hong Kong demo room. The guy you heard them is rather ignorant and not experienced to hear the sonic problems with Ultimate design but the pictures are there….
Rgs, Romy the Cat
What is the most interesting at the Hong Kong installation linked in my post above that they drive Magico Ultimate with looks like bi-amping of Lamm ML3 and ML1. The ML1 is 80W PP amp that is OK for this foolish Magico bass channel. The ML3 in country is 40W amp that was build to handle greed current on GM70 and to drive the ported Wilsons and alike. Degrading all the rest Magico Ultimate problem I would say that those Hong Kong folks are a bit wrong to employ ML3 over the Magico MF horns. Sure they use different logic: if you have 400K speakers then you need to use 160K amp… The moronic logic…
BTW, it kind of opines an interning question: how good the Lamm ML3 for the first half watt? I think it shall be fine but I am sure it would be much better it is meant to work in this mode. If ML3 would just a few watts then it would not need to come up with such a powerful 4-tube current provider for second stage. In fact, for first view watts the ML3 shall be 2-stages only.
Again, the Hong Kong folks sell the boxes to people who mostly have absolutely no idea what they do. If the ML3 drives only MF channels of Magico then we are in DSET world and 80% of ML3 is not necessary and ML3 might be converted into $5.000 amplifier on GM70. OK, in the Lamm’s scale it would be $55.000…The Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche