Great discussion!
I agree with ScottG that the Manger SUBJECTEVLY sound as "dull". I also agree about his given reasons or possible explanations. It`s obvious that the big diaphragm (or better to say the diaphragm area inbetween the 70mm large voice coil which is responsible for the high frequcy radiation) causes a loss in off axis high frequencies output.
On axis the Manger is quite linear.
It`s also obvious that two speakers with otherwise identical free field frequency response but different off axis response (dispersion) will sound different in a room.
However, IMO that`s almost (aside from some increased distortion in it`s lower operating range <300Hz and I wouldn`t use it below this) the only negative thing that can be said about the Manger.
I do not agree that this lack of off axis high frequency radiation cause a "lack" in dynamics. It might perfectly be that with wider off axis response the Manger would sound even better but I wouldn`t say that it "lacks" dynamics because of this.
IMO "other" speakers only exaggerate or add something what has been described in this thread already as "high frequency noise" which I think hits it quite well.
I made some direct comparison with "conventional" speakers and it`s true that after switching to a conventional speaker (for example a small 2-way speaker with a 25mm dome tweeter which I know well and which I considered as very good....until that comparison ) it first appeared that the Manger sound rather dull. But what was very amazing to me is that after a couple of times switching back and forth I almost couldn`t listen to the conventional speaker anymore.
What appeared as more "transparency" of the 2-way speaker simply turned out to be too bright, flat and somehow completely wrong (although it had the more linear measured response and more uniform off axis response).
It`s hard to describe but the Manger produced the far more authentic and natural "picture". A really three-dimensional picture where everything seemed to have the right proportions and also sound waves are coming from or related to where the respective imaginary sound sources are suspected.
Other speaker(s) I compared directly against a Manger produced a "picture" which appeared "pulled into pieces" with unrelated localisations of sound events which are very irritating. Like beams of light going through a bottle of thick glass where the shapes of the beams are twisted and distorted and parts of them are scattered in spots all over the place whereas the Manger "lightbeams" are overall maybe a little reduced in brightness but remain sharp contoured with correct proportions, and aren´t shivered into pieces.
To describe this effect in a technical manner the term "coherence" comes to my mind but it is also somehow insufficient to describe completely what is going on when listening to a Manger.
It could be argued that any of the better fullrange drivers can produce a similar "coherence effect" but I think this is only part of the truth and that concerning the Manger there is something more involved than just that.
Anyway this kind of "reality-fidelity" was unknown to me until I heard a Manger the first time (which is now about 15 years ago) and still today I do not know any other speaker which is capable of doing this.
The less off axis output of the Manger at high frequencies is a (IMO small, which I could live with) drawback but this can be cured to some extend by an indirected firing tweeter with higher dispersion (at least in the horizontal plane).
Essential is that this tweeter does not interfere with direct radiated waves from the front and also that those reflected waves arrive at the listening position with suitable delay after what the Manger is direct firing.
The Manger does the direct radiated waves part in an excellent way, it only increasingly beams toward higher frequencies.
The indirect tweeter should only "fill up" the frequency range of the reverebent sound field where the Manger begins to beam those high frequencies.
I also expressed some thoughts regarding this in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=5803&highlight=
BTW:
Manger introduced a curved shaped Plexiglass thing which is mounted in front of the Manger and which is called "Holoprofil". It claimes to widen the dispersion. I haven`t heard a Manger with Holoprofil yet but what I read on comments so far about the effect sound promising at least.
I agree with ScottG that the Manger SUBJECTEVLY sound as "dull". I also agree about his given reasons or possible explanations. It`s obvious that the big diaphragm (or better to say the diaphragm area inbetween the 70mm large voice coil which is responsible for the high frequcy radiation) causes a loss in off axis high frequencies output.
On axis the Manger is quite linear.
It`s also obvious that two speakers with otherwise identical free field frequency response but different off axis response (dispersion) will sound different in a room.
However, IMO that`s almost (aside from some increased distortion in it`s lower operating range <300Hz and I wouldn`t use it below this) the only negative thing that can be said about the Manger.
I do not agree that this lack of off axis high frequency radiation cause a "lack" in dynamics. It might perfectly be that with wider off axis response the Manger would sound even better but I wouldn`t say that it "lacks" dynamics because of this.
IMO "other" speakers only exaggerate or add something what has been described in this thread already as "high frequency noise" which I think hits it quite well.
I made some direct comparison with "conventional" speakers and it`s true that after switching to a conventional speaker (for example a small 2-way speaker with a 25mm dome tweeter which I know well and which I considered as very good....until that comparison ) it first appeared that the Manger sound rather dull. But what was very amazing to me is that after a couple of times switching back and forth I almost couldn`t listen to the conventional speaker anymore.
What appeared as more "transparency" of the 2-way speaker simply turned out to be too bright, flat and somehow completely wrong (although it had the more linear measured response and more uniform off axis response).
It`s hard to describe but the Manger produced the far more authentic and natural "picture". A really three-dimensional picture where everything seemed to have the right proportions and also sound waves are coming from or related to where the respective imaginary sound sources are suspected.
Other speaker(s) I compared directly against a Manger produced a "picture" which appeared "pulled into pieces" with unrelated localisations of sound events which are very irritating. Like beams of light going through a bottle of thick glass where the shapes of the beams are twisted and distorted and parts of them are scattered in spots all over the place whereas the Manger "lightbeams" are overall maybe a little reduced in brightness but remain sharp contoured with correct proportions, and aren´t shivered into pieces.
To describe this effect in a technical manner the term "coherence" comes to my mind but it is also somehow insufficient to describe completely what is going on when listening to a Manger.
It could be argued that any of the better fullrange drivers can produce a similar "coherence effect" but I think this is only part of the truth and that concerning the Manger there is something more involved than just that.
Anyway this kind of "reality-fidelity" was unknown to me until I heard a Manger the first time (which is now about 15 years ago) and still today I do not know any other speaker which is capable of doing this.
The less off axis output of the Manger at high frequencies is a (IMO small, which I could live with) drawback but this can be cured to some extend by an indirected firing tweeter with higher dispersion (at least in the horizontal plane).
Essential is that this tweeter does not interfere with direct radiated waves from the front and also that those reflected waves arrive at the listening position with suitable delay after what the Manger is direct firing.
The Manger does the direct radiated waves part in an excellent way, it only increasingly beams toward higher frequencies.
The indirect tweeter should only "fill up" the frequency range of the reverebent sound field where the Manger begins to beam those high frequencies.
I also expressed some thoughts regarding this in this thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=5803&highlight=
BTW:
Manger introduced a curved shaped Plexiglass thing which is mounted in front of the Manger and which is called "Holoprofil". It claimes to widen the dispersion. I haven`t heard a Manger with Holoprofil yet but what I read on comments so far about the effect sound promising at least.
serengetiplains said:
"how do time domain and transient speed affect one's subjective perception of the sound?"
Static time domain (or CSD), typically offers a "cleaner" sound. Often described as having less "hardness" or "congestion".
Dynamic time domain (the ability to not only react but also re-react to a change in signal), offers a more "precise" sound. Also typified by the description of "fast" drivers. You'll be able to "track" "micro dynamics" more easily with usually a more "ordered soundstage".
(Note however that a driver that is better at one is also usually better at the other.)
I'm fairly certain that the reason you prefer the Manger over the Piega has to do with Spectral decay and nothing to do with dispersion. The Piega's dispersion is also quite poor over most of its bandwidth. (Note that most true ribbon tweeters have excellent dispersion horizontally - something I suspect that the Manger does NOT have, and know that the Piega does not have. Where they often lack dispersion is vertically, but this is a distance vs. linesource characterstic, not a ribbon characteristic per se.)
Take a closer look at the CSD's of BOTH drivers. First notice the INITIAL decay. The Piega's is longer (worse). Now look at the level where artifacts occur and sustain the driver's decay. The Piega is about 12 db's down when this occurs from 2kHz up on average. The Manger's is at least 3db below this on average(better). The ONLY area that is markedly superior by the Piega is at about 1.5kHz (and the Manger sustain here could be an enclosure related artifact). What is perhaps even more important is NOT the treble, but is in fact the upper midrange. Note that throughout most of this region in the Manger that you have an ASTOUNDING 12 db of "clean" decay on average, (something the Piega doesn't even come close to). Chances are THIS is what your girlfriend prefers (..and so would I). This is also a reason why they will be difficult to "integrate" properly with a woofer.
ScottG said:
Your certainty is based on the assumption that you know why the Manger sounds different than other drivers. Part of the Manger's sonic difference no doubt concerns such things as spectral decay. But I've heard cleaner ribbons than the Piega---and I might as well broaden the field to say I've heard cleaner electrostats---and the sound of these remains, to my ear, identifiably different than the sound the Mangers create. Which is to say: spectral decay evidently ain't it.
Have you heard a Manger and for any extended time?
Re: Great discussion!
Interestingly enough Mangers original enclosure design around this problem was to use not ONE Manger driver (or even two), but THREE drivers. The claim in the literature was primarly enclosure pressurization related - to relieve back pressure on the front driver while creating more "uniform" reflections that would will hit the back of it. Then I think they attributed improved edge diffraction. I wouldn't dispute either, but in my opinon the real reason was:
1. Off-axis dispersion.
2. Selling a lot more Mangers.
cocolino said:
Interestingly enough Mangers original enclosure design around this problem was to use not ONE Manger driver (or even two), but THREE drivers. The claim in the literature was primarly enclosure pressurization related - to relieve back pressure on the front driver while creating more "uniform" reflections that would will hit the back of it. Then I think they attributed improved edge diffraction. I wouldn't dispute either, but in my opinon the real reason was:
1. Off-axis dispersion.
2. Selling a lot more Mangers.
serengetiplains said:
1. it isn't a certainty (hence the "fairly")
2. more importantly my most recent reply to you was based EXCLUSIVLY on the difference between the Manger and the Piega, NOT the Manger vs. "other drivers".
3. that the Manger sounds identifiably different is NOT in dispute, only WHY it might be percieved as sounding "dull", or lacking in "dynamics".
4. The logical progression that spectral decay "evidently isn't it" is deeply flawed. see number 2 and 3 above.
5. I have not heard the Manger, does this mean I can't have the technical experience neccesary to postulate plausible reasons why a driver might have a certain subjective character?
I agree with 2.
Regarding point 1:
In the Manger design You refer to, the 2 side firing Mangers are rolled off in the crossover towards higher frequencies. I can`t remember at the moment at which freqency and which slope this is, but I certainly know that they`re not playing in the high registers (>3kHz).
As I understand the purpose of using 3 drivers the other 2 on the sides of the enclosure are only there to prevent or delay drop in sound pressure level due to baffle step effect, hence simulating a much bigger front baffle . I`m not sure if I understand that what You said is the same (language problem for my part).
Anyway, I think this could be probably solved much cheaper than with additional two Manger drivers.
well you would have comb filtering problems in that sensitive area - so it makes sense. (I wasn't aware their was a circuit as well.)
was it perhaps a "shelving" circuit? That should do the trick, while minimizing problems.
Heres the latest (which is different, and a lot more brief):
http://www.manger-msw.com/en/produkte/index.html
and indeed they do seem to be describing "baffle step". Also a legit reason, but absurd considering the expense vs. alernatives..
was it perhaps a "shelving" circuit? That should do the trick, while minimizing problems.
Heres the latest (which is different, and a lot more brief):
http://www.manger-msw.com/en/produkte/index.html
and indeed they do seem to be describing "baffle step". Also a legit reason, but absurd considering the expense vs. alernatives..
I never saw a schematic of the crossover of this 3 Manger driver design.
I just digged out an old paper - it doesn`t specifiy any frequency or slope related thing. Only that the left and right driver can be "level-adjusted" individually and both adjusted "in terms of frequency above 3,2kHz" to avoid/tame short reflections due to nearby positioning the speakers at room boundaries.
On the attached diagram the time axis is not scaled, however You can see from the reduced risetime of the middle curve (=2 side firing Mangers) that there must be some sort of low pass filtering involved.
BTW: MTT (right curve) means Mitteltiefton = woofer/mid drivers.
Attachments
I have to correct myself somewhat. The reduced risetime on the graph above could also result from the fact that the sidefiring Mangers are already beaming and when the MIC was in front of the baffle that it therefore did not capture a good part of the high frequency waves of the sidefiring drivers.
By all means I can remember that some sort of electronic filter is involved for the side-firing Mangers and the text in that paper about "correcting" the high frequency response above 3,2kHz does indicate this also.
They use a first order LPF on the additional (side firing) MSWs. IMO the same thing could also be done cheaper using good conventional low-mid drivers (look at the Audio Physic Kronos).
But one must agree that it is better for them to sell more of their own drivers than resell drivers from another manufacturer.
Regards
Charles
But one must agree that it is better for them to sell more of their own drivers than resell drivers from another manufacturer.
Regards
Charles
Well, there could be a simple explanation why they are using three identical drivers (apart from pushing sales). All three drivers are working on ONE volume, and IMHO it would be rather difficult to design a cabinet with at least two seperate volumes AND retain the drivers in their given places.
Those Manger drivers are quite sensitive when it comes to cabinet design..... i.e.damping of back-and sidewall reflections. The flexible (soft) diaphragm of the Manger's is way more sensitive to unwanted reflections than a metal cone....
PS In the 90's most Manger creations have been featured in the german magazine "Klang und Ton" , including all x-over schematics. Wenn I recall correctly the side units were rolled off with a simple 1mH coil.
@ScottG: I find it rather dubious or even hideous to elaborate on something you've never heard.....
One question: Are you buying a car by just looking at the colour brochure.....or are you tasting a good meal by just looking at the menue????
Just wondering.....
rgds,
Oliver
Stixx said:
To each his own.. I presume then you dislike the statements by JA in the measurements section of stereophile? After all he does EXACTLY this for most of his comments (not having heard the product before making the comments.)
Trite questions with faulty logic - the emphasis of my replies were on WHY a manger MIGHT sound the way it does (and only then with regard to two particular areas).
Look at it this way: If someone says their car has a lot of "get-up-and-go", what could be the reason? Car weight, torque, HP, etc.: could all explain this subjective impression. (the same logic holds true for the meals as well.)
With that in mind - keep wondering, you've got a L O T left to wonder about..
I do keep wondering......and all the yakyakyak in hifi magazines doesn't change that either.
I am not about to offend anybody but I am really sick of all this theorizing that's going on in alot of internet forums.....people going to great lengths TALKING about something and EXPERIENCING nothing.
Enjoy the music,
Oliver