Ok, so I love my Maggie MMG's. They do everything (within reason and allowed budget) that I want a loudspeaker to do. Bass is tight, ok, not deep but enjoyable. Midrange present and snappy, high end crisp and non fatiguing. Great sound imaging and soudstage. Perfect? Well only if speaker AND listener placement is Jusssst Right. I am sure you all know this and anyone that has heard Maggies or any planer is familiar with the "critical placement" issue. There is just a quality about planers that I like and I am not sure that I can point to anything particular. Maybe it is the particular distortion inherent the beast or "quickness" or that you got a big hunk of plastic instead of an array of cones moving the air. I loved the QUAD ESL 57 with subs that my friend had when I got started in HiFi. The Maggies do the same for me... It's just that I don't want to have to have a room designed around a speaker and a "golden spot" required to sit in to fully enjoy the speaker. I am aware that all speakers have a sweet spot, but certainly "traditional" designs are not as critical as Maggies and drivers are so much more advanced than when I had my KEF 104 ab boxes. And while they were good they didn't match the qualities of the planer group. So I give this intro to say that I want to build a pair mains that will approximate the qualilties of a Maggie (planer) and yet not require me to sit like a manequin to enjoy them. Oh yah, budget is a concern, course. Can't build using ScanSpeak or the "higher end" Seas etc. Just looking for some opinions on what to focus on when looking for a design, componants, and topologies. Any comments and help would GREATLY be appreaciated.
me too...but hey.
I also have the MMGs and love them... I was bit by the maggie bug a while back and moved to magnepans from B&W. Now I have a UCD400 AD amp powering the MMG's and couldn't be happier - well sorta...
I also am annoyed about the MMG's narrow sweetspot, but can overlook it. I thought of buying one more set and doubling the width of the sweetspot - just might try it someday...connect them tweeter-tweeter with a hinge so they would look like 2/3 of the Timpany series maggies...and connect the speakers with a 4 channel amp - not in series to one stereo amp...
Anyone done this? Any problems with this concept? Anyone got a spare set of MMG's they want to load for the test?
I also have the MMGs and love them... I was bit by the maggie bug a while back and moved to magnepans from B&W. Now I have a UCD400 AD amp powering the MMG's and couldn't be happier - well sorta...
I also am annoyed about the MMG's narrow sweetspot, but can overlook it. I thought of buying one more set and doubling the width of the sweetspot - just might try it someday...connect them tweeter-tweeter with a hinge so they would look like 2/3 of the Timpany series maggies...and connect the speakers with a 4 channel amp - not in series to one stereo amp...
Anyone done this? Any problems with this concept? Anyone got a spare set of MMG's they want to load for the test?
Ricky... Don't really have a cabinet size in mind yet. I am more interested in the "quality" of sound. Research has indicated that I am looking at 2.5 way designs. But smaller than larger is always good.
John... you obviously know what I am talking about when I refer to "quality of sound" in reference to the maggies. Have you heard anything that compares to "that quality" in a traditional speaker at all???
John... you obviously know what I am talking about when I refer to "quality of sound" in reference to the maggies. Have you heard anything that compares to "that quality" in a traditional speaker at all???
Nope. Heard a pair of 800 series B&W a while back - very nice, but cost/performance just wasn't there for me...Never heard a set of Logans, or Wilson Watts, but they are clearly out of what I wish to spend.
In the MMG's price range, I like Polk LSi7 and LSi9, more expensive are the B&W's 7 series...
I have heard a set of Maggie IIIa recently and lacked some dynamics compared to the MMGs - but they were a good 20 years old.
I have not heard much in that price ranges that grabs you in the way the MMGs can. With a few known caveats (sweetspot, size, placement, etc)...
In the MMG's price range, I like Polk LSi7 and LSi9, more expensive are the B&W's 7 series...
I have heard a set of Maggie IIIa recently and lacked some dynamics compared to the MMGs - but they were a good 20 years old.
I have not heard much in that price ranges that grabs you in the way the MMGs can. With a few known caveats (sweetspot, size, placement, etc)...
Have you heard any dynamic dipoles, such as the Orion? These days it's possible to have 90% of the performance of the Orion for a fraction of the cost.
$250 for a Behringer DCX2496
$60 for a pair of Seas tweeters- or $120 for the Peerless HDS
$70 for a pair of Dayton RS180s
$240 for four Dayton RS270s, or $480 for four RSS265HF
That adds up to $620, or $920 for a premium version without tax or shipping, and you just need six channels of amplification. This would be doable for just over $200 from 41hz.com.
Just the drivers for the standard Orion add up to $1200 on discount from Madisound.
If you have a good subwoofer, I think that the sub-$700 orion clone seems like a great way to get that dipole sound on a rock-bottom budget; and get better sound throughout the room as well. I believe that a big part of the reason that the planar speakers have such limited sweet spots is because they have huge radiating areas for the high frequencies.
Anyway, I guess that was just a rant because I wish I had a room and a budget that would allow me to do it. I hope that inspired someone.
$250 for a Behringer DCX2496
$60 for a pair of Seas tweeters- or $120 for the Peerless HDS
$70 for a pair of Dayton RS180s
$240 for four Dayton RS270s, or $480 for four RSS265HF
That adds up to $620, or $920 for a premium version without tax or shipping, and you just need six channels of amplification. This would be doable for just over $200 from 41hz.com.
Just the drivers for the standard Orion add up to $1200 on discount from Madisound.
If you have a good subwoofer, I think that the sub-$700 orion clone seems like a great way to get that dipole sound on a rock-bottom budget; and get better sound throughout the room as well. I believe that a big part of the reason that the planar speakers have such limited sweet spots is because they have huge radiating areas for the high frequencies.
Anyway, I guess that was just a rant because I wish I had a room and a budget that would allow me to do it. I hope that inspired someone.
I can't offer anything useful except sympathy. Years ago a friend had a set of Magnapans (I think, or were they Magnaplanars?). The clarity was simply wonderful- better than just about any box I've ever heard. In spite of that, we were never quite satisfied. We moved those speakers to every wall and every place in-between. Did various room treatments. This went on and on. I think he finally gave up and sold them. My hearing is nowhere near as good now as then, but IMO the closest you can come is an active crossover (4th order Linkwitz is my choice) and separate power amps on a 3-way system. It's very difficult to get that clarity out of a passively crossed system, not only because of part limitations, but because the active is so much easier to optimize.
Sounds like an awesome setup- those Neos have the added benefit of being able to operate as dipole tweeters, which is something that Linkwitz recently started experimenting with.
I'm sure the Magnepans are great- they're low distortion and very clean, and because they're dipoles they interact with rooms in a different way from normal speakers. In the bass range it's often more benign. It seems that their main problem comes from their limited sensitivity and limited dispersion due to large radiating area.
I'm sure the Magnepans are great- they're low distortion and very clean, and because they're dipoles they interact with rooms in a different way from normal speakers. In the bass range it's often more benign. It seems that their main problem comes from their limited sensitivity and limited dispersion due to large radiating area.
Hi TexasTim,
The small sweetspot ultimately was the reason I couldn't go with the Maggie MG12's myself.
I tried BG RD40, Scanspeak kevlar woofers, Seas Millenium switching to Scanspeak AirCirc's shortly. It's not the same as Maggie. It's not nearly as airy or quick, but using the BG planar gives me a little of it.
But if it's planar sound, you might want to punt and go electrostat headphone. Even my dynamic Grado and Sennheisers sound closer to Maggie realism than most speakers. And a great set of headphone's can be had for under $700.
The Neo3/Neo8PDR may be a different matter than the RD-series BG planars. I find that with my RD40's I have maybe a couch sized area that's fairly listenable.
The small sweetspot ultimately was the reason I couldn't go with the Maggie MG12's myself.
I tried BG RD40, Scanspeak kevlar woofers, Seas Millenium switching to Scanspeak AirCirc's shortly. It's not the same as Maggie. It's not nearly as airy or quick, but using the BG planar gives me a little of it.
But if it's planar sound, you might want to punt and go electrostat headphone. Even my dynamic Grado and Sennheisers sound closer to Maggie realism than most speakers. And a great set of headphone's can be had for under $700.
The Neo3/Neo8PDR may be a different matter than the RD-series BG planars. I find that with my RD40's I have maybe a couch sized area that's fairly listenable.
If you're looking for a 2.5 way, then maybe you should consider a bass unit with twin voice coils. I know SEAS do a couple of gooduns. Roll the first coil off with a choke of the order 6.00mH, the 2nd coil at around 3.5k,third order Butterworth, and a 3rd order Butterworth for the tweeter. The Focal range of Tweeters worked really well. If you can get hold of a pair, try the TC90K or TC120K inerted Kevlar. They're old but they're good.
Ricky
Ricky
A setup I can suggest is with the long BG ribbons (such as RD50) run dipole, some decent lower midrange cones, a subwoofer -- AND a Beringer parametric EQ. The biggest problem with the long ribbons (to me, anyway) is that the high end is quite rolled off naturally, so they sound overpolite, maybe even kind of dull. But with the parametric (a DEQ2496 or FBQ2496, which is what I use) that is easily dealt with and the parametric also does wonders in balancing subwoofers for room effects.
Combining the BG long ribbons with a good parametric EQ gets you the panel sound, wide and high listening area, and good overall response all together.
Combining the BG long ribbons with a good parametric EQ gets you the panel sound, wide and high listening area, and good overall response all together.
Well I just "Fixed" my Maggie problem - I got bigger and better Maggies with a bigger sweetspot.
Just bought a mint pair of old MGIIIa. They sound fantastic, More of that maggie sound over a larger spectrum and wider area. What more can a Maggie lover ask for?
Too bad they are so damn HUGE! More than twice the surface area than the MMGs...But I have a workaround for that though..just need a little time.
Just bought a mint pair of old MGIIIa. They sound fantastic, More of that maggie sound over a larger spectrum and wider area. What more can a Maggie lover ask for?
Too bad they are so damn HUGE! More than twice the surface area than the MMGs...But I have a workaround for that though..just need a little time.
A lot of great comments out there.... Thanks to you all. But it seems to me that the majority of comments reflect a bias toward
"Planar is planar, cone is cone", and they are really two different beasts. That begs the question, "Is there more to the way a speaker sounds than frequency response?" or, "If one could create two speakers with different diaphram technologies but have identical frequency responses would they sound different?"
"Planar is planar, cone is cone", and they are really two different beasts. That begs the question, "Is there more to the way a speaker sounds than frequency response?" or, "If one could create two speakers with different diaphram technologies but have identical frequency responses would they sound different?"
More to how it sounds than frequency response? Well, I think these are as important..
a) types and amount of THD. Does it measure high 2nd,3rd,4th,5th harmonic THD. And is the 3rd more prevalent than 2nd. I'd prefer that the distortion goes down as the order of the harmonic goes up.
b) room interaction. Supposedly planar's/line-array diminish it's effect on the sound.
c) dipole versus box. Dipole has it's own sound. I believe it works because the psychoacoustic masking of the back wave can be less detrimental to the sound than vibrations of a box.
d) cone material. different cone material sounds different. you can only fix so breakup peaks in the crossover. A lot of people talk about preferring soft domes or metal-dome tweeters depending on their high-frequency hearing.
e) waterfall. I think this is probably the key place to look to see why planars have a different sound.
a) types and amount of THD. Does it measure high 2nd,3rd,4th,5th harmonic THD. And is the 3rd more prevalent than 2nd. I'd prefer that the distortion goes down as the order of the harmonic goes up.
b) room interaction. Supposedly planar's/line-array diminish it's effect on the sound.
c) dipole versus box. Dipole has it's own sound. I believe it works because the psychoacoustic masking of the back wave can be less detrimental to the sound than vibrations of a box.
d) cone material. different cone material sounds different. you can only fix so breakup peaks in the crossover. A lot of people talk about preferring soft domes or metal-dome tweeters depending on their high-frequency hearing.
e) waterfall. I think this is probably the key place to look to see why planars have a different sound.
IMO radiating area is a big factor (no pun intended). You can make the right 6" driver go down very low if you put it in the right box, but no matter what you do and how much travel it has, it won't sound like a pair of 15" drivers on a low organ note. As for the high end, we just don't have many large area tweeters to compare against, but I have to believe the difference is as great or greater. Then there's the issue of bipolar drivers, and again we don't have many bipolar tweeters to compare to- I guess ribbons are (can be?) bipolar, but most people, me included, have no experience with them.
Buy an older pair of Martin Logan electrostats. They have the same quick open airy sound but they're hybrids (bass drivers added). Also, the curvilinear design of the planar drivers effective solves the narrow sweet spot issue. A pair of Aerius II's can be had fo $500 if you don't mind a minor cosmetic nick or two. There are other options obviously but I own the Aerius II's and can attest to their worthiness. These are very, very nice.
I have tried a couple of open baffle cone systems using wide range plus helper (woofer on one and tweeter on the other) and in both cases they were very forgiving of listening position. Perhaps such a system with a ribbon helper tweeter of some sort (one that radiates from the back and front) might do what you want without requiring such large units.
mike
mike
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.