Magico S5 Mk.II loudspeaker Specifications

Sidebar 1: Specifications

Description: Three-way, floorstanding loudspeaker with sealed enclosure. Drive-units: 1.1" (26mm) diamond-coated beryllium-dome tweeter, 6" (152.4mm) graphene-coated Nano-Tec–cone midrange unit, two 10" (254mm) aluminum-cone woofers. Frequency range: 20Hz–50kHz. Sensitivity: 88dB/2.83V/m. Nominal impedance: 4 ohms. Recommended amplification: 50–1000W.
Dimensions: 48" (1220mm) H by 15" (380mm) W by 14" (360mm) D. Weight: 220 lbs (100kg).
Finishes: Metallic gloss or high-gloss paint.
Serial numbers of units reviewed: 00739, 00740.
Price: $38,000/pair in M-Cast standard finish, $42,750/pair in M-Coat high-gloss finish. Approximate number of dealers: 35.
Manufacturer: Magico, LLC, 3170 Corporate Place, Hayward, CA 94545. Tel: (510) 649-9700. Web:

Magico, LLC
3170 Corporate Place
Hayward, CA 94545
(510) 649-9700

Anon2's picture

I heard these speakers at a show and was impressed. These speakers, while out of my price range for sure, have kept a lid on price (albeit a high one), and are a product that is chock-full of technology and thoughtful engineering.

The remarks from the manufacturer in this review are reminiscent of the first review I read of the late great Magico Mini. To quote this early review, and the same open disclosure exhibited in this review of the S5: "His [Alon's] ingredients and assembly protocol are an open book. You know exactly what you're getting and how it works." I could be wrong, but I don't recall many other speaker manufacturers who provide as many technical insights into their expensive products as does Magico. This review shows a continuation of this "open book" approach to Magico's engineering and design process.

Another question I'd pose is that Magico seems to be consistent in its use of advanced materials (and aluminum) for its drivers. These materials would seem to be durable and long-lasting, in addition to their acoustic properties. Other manufacturers, meanwhile, are going back to paper and textiles (the materials of the past, whatever positive traits they have as transducers). We need more information on what the expected longevity of materials is for expensive speakers. The purchasers of these high investment products must be asking these questions if I am.

Still, this was a fine review. The Magico product I am most curious to see tested is the Q1 stand-mount. The Magico Mini (or Mini II) never seems to have made it to a full test bench. Perhaps Stereophile can test the Q1 at some point.

Here's the link for the early review of the first generation Mini. The listening room pictures featured in this article stand among the most memorable ones I've seen:

Here's a video clip for the Q1 from a RMAF of a few years ago:

If anyone has a video clip of the MIni or Mini II, please post it.

HC63's picture

the reason many of high-end loudspeakers manufacturers are using old fashion cone materials like paper and silk is due to the fact that most of the off-the-shelves driver manufacturers, which is what most of these companies use, do not offer any advance solution to the stiffness/dampness cone conundrum and have been dumbing down their available selection due to shortage of R&D funding and market demand. The lack of unique drivers design in most high-end loudspeakers is alarming. Magico has been quite unique in their pursuit of real solutions to the challenge of taming a true pistonic cone.

tonykaz's picture

How many do they batch before they do another Revision?, I'd like to know what issues they correct for the MK.111

Tony in Michigan

tonykaz's picture

Wow, you're still enjoying this wonderful recording. I got mine from Karen Sumner & Electrocompaniet who were spreading them around at CES 1984 ( I think ). I gave away quite a few.

I'll betcha, you & I are the only two folks still playing it.

Kinda makes me wish we could go back to those heady Analog Vinyl days. At the time, I didn't realize how wonderful it was.

Of course, I wasn't making any serious money at it, it's a poor man's vocation, I think it still is.

Tony in Michigan

John Atkinson's picture
tonykaz wrote:
I'll betcha, you & I are the only two folks still playing it.

What I had not realized (or had forgotten) was that the LP was cut from a digital master. Bob Stuart was given access both to the master and to the unique digital recorder with which it was made. He is working on correcting the digital-domain problems with the early A/D converter and is planning to make an fully restored MQA version available.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

tonykaz's picture

Geez, I love that Meridian Active gear and the Company. Interesting that Stuart is the third Toneff lover that I'm aware of.

Thank you for letting me know this, I'll certainly buy it ( and have a closer look at the Meridian Catalog of Recordings. Linn Recordings too, for that matter. I'm hunting for "Songs of the Hebrides" that I had on vinyl and loved. We may be entering the Golden Age of availability for all of these wonderful niche performances.

Tony in Michigan

ps. Thanks for mentioning Radka

scottsol's picture

"I'll betcha, you & I are the only two folks still playing it."

You Lose!

allhifi's picture

Mr. Atkinson: Referring to Fig.1, and Fig.5:

There are some (technically-minded) folk/engineers who feel that the results in Fig. 1 (Impedance/Electrical Phase plot) should ideally be both linear (as far as practically possible) as well as not to overlap --being as close to 0-degree phase angle as possible.

Could you shed some insight into this --above and beyond the "loading" it would represent to the driving amplifier.

Figure-5: The considerable 5-db. dip (between 200-500 Hz.) is rather shocking giving the floor-loading of the woofers --that typically offer up a far more predictable, linear response. Indeed, if most listening environments demonstrate a (inversely proportional) "peak" in this range, a more linear response would be achieved. Be it far from me however, to bitch about "taming" low and low/mid bloat from the listening experience.

Yet, an explanation of this anomaly would be appreciated. I note, tat, among others, the excellent KEF RE-3's (for example) have the woofer's a considerable distance from the floor yet have a beautifully linear/even frequency response !
The gains in lower frequency definition must surely be far superior to drives coupled (and aimed) at your toes.

Seeking clarification.

Thank you,

peter jasz

Axiom05's picture

1) It looks as if these speakers do not use any sort of wave guide for the tweeter yet there is what appears to be a very smooth off-axis horizontal response. It is often difficult to clearly see these normalized graphs, am I seeing this correctly? One might expect such a wide baffle to result in a rapid roll-off at upper frequencies yet there seems to be a good match between the lower end of the tweeter and upper end of mid-range.
2) JA, do you have any thoughts on why these speakers do not appear to excite your 32Hz room mode? Do closed box systems not couple to the room to the same extent as ported speakers?

audiopacer's picture

Love the SOLID chassis design. Revolting that some very well known manufacturers deploy cheap, inferior construction materials; Think high density compressed paper mache; It's a wonder some modern "high end" boxes don't vibrate apart;

Heard the A3's and loved them;