what is up about MANGER drivers..
some say that it is one of the best driver available
while others say that it is not that good ...
i can see a trend where people that actually own
( or have listened to ) a manger driver are more on the positive performance side
( but that could be related to the ownin' )
I looked at the manger drivers a while back,
and it still intrigues myself!
we all know the benefits of a single driver for coherency
and the bottom end can always be filled with any up performance woofer
If we take a look at some of the pictures used on the manger website, such as this one :
this looks like a really nicewave pattern to me
it was said ( i read it here ) that some regular drivers might also disperse in this way at some frequencies?
what about ESL ?
a quick question , when the pattern looks like on the HF from the picture, does one driver emit wave from a wider area ?
doesn't that affect HF performance?
i am still quite amazed with this technology,
and i might consider using a pair of the manger
for my personal room ...
would it be suited to OB design ?
any problem with the use of a dipole system with this driver??
some say that it is one of the best driver available
while others say that it is not that good ...
i can see a trend where people that actually own
( or have listened to ) a manger driver are more on the positive performance side
( but that could be related to the ownin' )
I looked at the manger drivers a while back,
and it still intrigues myself!
we all know the benefits of a single driver for coherency
and the bottom end can always be filled with any up performance woofer
If we take a look at some of the pictures used on the manger website, such as this one :
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
this looks like a really nicewave pattern to me
it was said ( i read it here ) that some regular drivers might also disperse in this way at some frequencies?
what about ESL ?
a quick question , when the pattern looks like on the HF from the picture, does one driver emit wave from a wider area ?
doesn't that affect HF performance?
i am still quite amazed with this technology,
and i might consider using a pair of the manger
for my personal room ...
would it be suited to OB design ?
any problem with the use of a dipole system with this driver??
I think only Quad is near to this nice pattern (if we consider electrostatics).
You can listen to the Manger from extremely short distance. You can nearly put the ear to the distance of 14 cm and the sound is coherent (close your eyes and see the musicians as a dwarfs). It is better than with coaxial loudspeaker. It has no practical use, I am writing it only to express that it is not easy to say which point of membrane radiates high frequencies and which not. Of course high frequencies are radiated from the central membrane, of course HF are radiated from the 70 mm diameter, of course HF are radiated from the outer membrane.
When I take a board with a small hole and move the board through the diameter of the membrane, I can clearly hear that the highest frequencies are radiated only from the central part of the central membrane and are not audible from the voice coil.
Manger will perform perfectly in large baffle. It is an ideal stage. You can read about it on manger website and it is true. The only alternative is Zerobox virtual infinite baffle.
Manger dont recomend using their drivers fullrange but it works nice. Manger dont recomend using their drivers as a dipol but it works nice.
The sound from the back side of MSW is deteriorated by some noise due to the physical dimensions of the motor drive. There is some problem about maybe 3 kHz but if you use larger open baffle and some acoustic adaptation of room (on the back wall), the sound is excellent.
Some say the bigger the baffle the better. I think there is no reason to use bigger baffle than 55 cm in diameter for 200Hz or 80 cm in diameter for 150Hz. It is the same as with Oris front horns of BD-design.
If the baffle is smaller there may be bigger problem with bass integration. I like the sound of MSW in open baffle of 35 cm in diameter very much, but it is not perfect.
MSW is not the smoothest driver. It is the smoothest highend fullrange driver. Some minor problems of frequency response can be taken out by DEQX. It is not necessary but it may be very interesting.
The real drawback of MSW is not its higher harmonic distortion or limited sound pressure to 110dB. It is only the directivity of high frequencies.
Three listeners can enjoy Manger speakers. The HF rolloff is not as with some other directional drivers like horns. Subjectively the highs are audible from all angles only the air is missing.
You can listen to the Manger from extremely short distance. You can nearly put the ear to the distance of 14 cm and the sound is coherent (close your eyes and see the musicians as a dwarfs). It is better than with coaxial loudspeaker. It has no practical use, I am writing it only to express that it is not easy to say which point of membrane radiates high frequencies and which not. Of course high frequencies are radiated from the central membrane, of course HF are radiated from the 70 mm diameter, of course HF are radiated from the outer membrane.
When I take a board with a small hole and move the board through the diameter of the membrane, I can clearly hear that the highest frequencies are radiated only from the central part of the central membrane and are not audible from the voice coil.
Manger will perform perfectly in large baffle. It is an ideal stage. You can read about it on manger website and it is true. The only alternative is Zerobox virtual infinite baffle.
Manger dont recomend using their drivers fullrange but it works nice. Manger dont recomend using their drivers as a dipol but it works nice.
The sound from the back side of MSW is deteriorated by some noise due to the physical dimensions of the motor drive. There is some problem about maybe 3 kHz but if you use larger open baffle and some acoustic adaptation of room (on the back wall), the sound is excellent.
Some say the bigger the baffle the better. I think there is no reason to use bigger baffle than 55 cm in diameter for 200Hz or 80 cm in diameter for 150Hz. It is the same as with Oris front horns of BD-design.
If the baffle is smaller there may be bigger problem with bass integration. I like the sound of MSW in open baffle of 35 cm in diameter very much, but it is not perfect.
MSW is not the smoothest driver. It is the smoothest highend fullrange driver. Some minor problems of frequency response can be taken out by DEQX. It is not necessary but it may be very interesting.
The real drawback of MSW is not its higher harmonic distortion or limited sound pressure to 110dB. It is only the directivity of high frequencies.
Three listeners can enjoy Manger speakers. The HF rolloff is not as with some other directional drivers like horns. Subjectively the highs are audible from all angles only the air is missing.
Daveis said:
Years ago I heard a pair of Centaurs in a stereo shop, and I remember thinking "man these things are sweet".
A few years later I heard the Scintilla which was just incredible, it remains the best full range I've ever heard. Unfortunately it doesn't get along too well with amplifiers to say the least...
There have been a few votes for quads already, but here is my emphatic vote that any of the iterations (57, 63, 988, 988 or the new ones) are some of the best on the planet. I've heard plenty of really expensive and incredible speakers and there is still something very unique and special to the quad sound that all others lack.
Nate
Nate
4jirka
I´m not feelling the high frequency dispersion problems of a manger driver as a problem ,but the high harmonic distortion if runing fullrange,leads to a kind of quite big nasality of its sound,that I really dislike,it makes the sound sounds quite dull in the mid band.
But with a high pass or as a dipole It´s o.k. and probably the best.
I´m not feelling the high frequency dispersion problems of a manger driver as a problem ,but the high harmonic distortion if runing fullrange,leads to a kind of quite big nasality of its sound,that I really dislike,it makes the sound sounds quite dull in the mid band.
But with a high pass or as a dipole It´s o.k. and probably the best.
Not a hijack... but an eerie similarity
Geez... seems I've heard this sort of description of imaging b4
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=642400#post642400
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83206:)
John L.
rcavictim said:
Geez... seems I've heard this sort of description of imaging b4
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=642400#post642400
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83206:)
John L.
Coffee
Hi, I agree with you, for best results Manger should work above 200Hz and with sharp filter.
The dispersion of the highs is absolutely no problem if the Manger Holoprofile sound deflector is used. You can use DIY sound deflector made for example from wood. Everything which has to be done is to cover the opposite points of the voice coil or better the opposite points of the membrane. After that the dispersion of the highs is excellent to that extent what the 1inch dome can do.
Hi, I agree with you, for best results Manger should work above 200Hz and with sharp filter.
The dispersion of the highs is absolutely no problem if the Manger Holoprofile sound deflector is used. You can use DIY sound deflector made for example from wood. Everything which has to be done is to cover the opposite points of the voice coil or better the opposite points of the membrane. After that the dispersion of the highs is excellent to that extent what the 1inch dome can do.
i got a bit informed
and i can't seem to find Mangers for anything less than 2000$CAD * pair ( ~ 1800$ USD )
i find that quite expensive,
even more if i remember that i was quoted 600$USD/drivers a few years back
Do you guys think that Mangers are worth that much ?
i could get a LOT of Excel series for that money!!!
plannig my next move,
is MANGER a go or not ? worth it ?
and i can't seem to find Mangers for anything less than 2000$CAD * pair ( ~ 1800$ USD )
i find that quite expensive,
even more if i remember that i was quoted 600$USD/drivers a few years back
Do you guys think that Mangers are worth that much ?
i could get a LOT of Excel series for that money!!!
plannig my next move,
is MANGER a go or not ? worth it ?
Look at the new Apogee Synergy (similar to the old Scintilla). Very nice but $25k! Weighs around 300 lbs each due to extensive use of metal in its construction. Can be both triamped or biamped passively or actively.
http://stereophile.com/
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/102623.html
http://stereophile.com/
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/102623.html
Synergy must be superb.
About Seas Excel I can say this:
I made two way W18EX001 and T25CF002 Millennium. Excellent speaker for this price and size. Directly compared to fullrange Manger, there is more bass and lower harmonic distortion in Excel, but the realism is lower.
My friend said this: "With the Manger my ears are empty and my brain is full of music. With the two way I dont understand the texture so good".
About Seas Excel I can say this:
I made two way W18EX001 and T25CF002 Millennium. Excellent speaker for this price and size. Directly compared to fullrange Manger, there is more bass and lower harmonic distortion in Excel, but the realism is lower.
My friend said this: "With the Manger my ears are empty and my brain is full of music. With the two way I dont understand the texture so good".
Not quite a "full range", but as of yesterday the most impressive I've heard is a BG RD50 planar magnetic (psuedo ribbon) equalized with an FBQ2496. Doesn't do bass really (at least not very loudly), but wow.
The driver normally rolls off pretty much above 12kHz and has a dip around 8kHz. But the equalizer takes care of that quite well (I used to be a "no equalizers" snob, but now am over that!). The overall presentation is 'of a whole cloth' and the narrow dipoles sound almost the same anywhere in the room.
The driver normally rolls off pretty much above 12kHz and has a dip around 8kHz. But the equalizer takes care of that quite well (I used to be a "no equalizers" snob, but now am over that!). The overall presentation is 'of a whole cloth' and the narrow dipoles sound almost the same anywhere in the room.
I've got some BG RD-40's and while I like the sound quite a bit. They give me a taste of the Apogee Centaur Major's I loved so long ago. I've augmented the top end from 10khz up with a T25CF002 Millennium tweeter. I've played with bringing the tweeter in as low as 2500 hz. And to my ears, the RD40 can hang with the Millenium upto 10khz. People who like a more conventional 2-way sound would like them with the tweeter crossed in at 2500-4khz.
A question for the BG RD owners. Is the RD50 and RD75 really better than the RD40? Can you run them lower? I kind of expect a longer ribbon to actually perform WORSE and beam more in the higher frequencies. But I suppose dipole you get more of that line-array thing with them taller.
I read that Apogee is coming back, but that their speakers are silly expensive... eg. $25K USD.
Still nothing including the BG RD's touches a real ribbon.
Does anyone make them anymore for a reasonable price?
Also, does anyone consider the Maggie 3.6 to be anywhere near the best of the Apogee's? Seems to me that I like the Centaur Major better than the Maggie 1.2, 1.6 and 3.6.
A question for the BG RD owners. Is the RD50 and RD75 really better than the RD40? Can you run them lower? I kind of expect a longer ribbon to actually perform WORSE and beam more in the higher frequencies. But I suppose dipole you get more of that line-array thing with them taller.
I read that Apogee is coming back, but that their speakers are silly expensive... eg. $25K USD.
Still nothing including the BG RD's touches a real ribbon.
Does anyone make them anymore for a reasonable price?
Also, does anyone consider the Maggie 3.6 to be anywhere near the best of the Apogee's? Seems to me that I like the Centaur Major better than the Maggie 1.2, 1.6 and 3.6.
Daveis said:
My opinion is the line array type response (1/R) and increased power handling is what I was after... and I wasn't disapointed. Beaming doesn't seem to be a problem with my setup... in fact, the speakers have an "air" throughout the house that isn't apparent with regular speakers.
As for true ribbons, ... well... I guess if cost - no - object design is the goal... maybe.... but you'd be hard pressed to beat the sound of these at 10 x what they cost me to build.
As always... ymmv
JL
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.