Lowther vs Manger

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

A friend of mine who loves recording classical music put a friend in touch who had a problem with storing his Dad's old Mangers. He'd obviously had his eyes on the Mangers for years . . .

The friend brought the Mangers over and we auditioned them. Polite, flat, subtle are the expressions I understand are used about them, and then I switched over to a pair of Lowthers in front horns using backwards-into-the-corner facing Acoustas for deep bass. . . . My Manger friend could not believe his ears, saying they were the best speakers he'd ever heard . . . instruments jumping out at you in a nice and pleasing way . . .

However, when he went, his son having become fractious at this stage, I tried a little experimenting. Just as people complain of lack of bass with TP1s and simply say "turn up the bass", I turned up the treble on the Mangers and they sounded like the Lowthers . . .

It seems to make nonsense of so called flat frequency responses. Are the measurements wrong or do our ears simply like something different?

Best wishes

David P

[Joachim Gerhard]

Our ears are superbly sensitive for frequency response diffences and level differences.
When you did not equalise the two speakers to match that criterions to a certain precission
( say + - 1dB ), a direct comparision is not posible. There are other things that make a good loudspeaker, but this are very basic esentials in a nutshell.

[audiotux]

Hi David ,

normaly they present two worlds ( for mine ears ), maybe because this
was a pair of old Mangers , they needed mor treble , but the newer ones
are okay . I like the Manger more than the Lowthers .

Juergen

[tnargs]

Flat FR is not the only requirement for good speakers. But it is preferred.

[Joachim Gerhard]

Yes, the next most important are low distortion, dynamics and the whole issue of radiation pattern. Phase or time response could fill a book.

[tnargs]

Manger FR above 200Hz

MangerFR.jpg

Lowther FR to same scale (if you open it):

LowtherAcoustaFR.jpg

[David Pinnegar]

Originally Posted by audiotux

Hi David ,

normaly they present two worlds ( for mine ears ), maybe because this
was a pair of old Mangers , they needed mor treble , but the newer ones
are okay . I like the Manger more than the Lowthers .

Juergen

Hi!

This is very intriguing! Certainly the Mangers with the treble turned up are very good, but it's shocking to have to apply so much treble control on the amplifier! To what extent is the treble of the newer units better?

Many thanks

David P

[tnargs]

As per the FR posted, the newer ones should not need the treble boosted.

The big issue with the Mangers is the high degree of ripple caused by internal resonances, present at most frequencies but most obvious in the 700Hz-to-4000Hz region, where the ear is at its most sensitive.

[Joachim Gerhard]

You get a better handle on the Manger when you measure in the time domain. It has a very fast risetime of 13usec and is phase linear over a wide range. See the step response measurement from the Manger website. The treble response from 1989 on to my knowlage is slightly disfuse field equalised on axis over 10kHz to get the correct treble balance in room. The model for this is the Schoeps MK2S microphone. Older units have a Samaruim Kobald magnet and never ones very strong neodymium tablets to improve sensitivity. When that transition took place i do not know.

[hm]

Hello,
thats right,
look my measurements with Manger 1991,
a measurement from mr Manger,
look the step response,
one of the best,
less highs are an illusion because the Manger has no
high resonanses whatsoever, look the Waterfall,
a Lowther is with the wizzer cone much more difficult.
basstubamess
here Lowther measurements
http://www.aer-original.com/html/hob..._jan_2002.html