I have had open baffle speakers since trialing a pair of MMGs about 20 years ago. Soon after I bought a pair of 1.6s that I still enjoy but I am ready to take the next step. In the words of Nelson Pass I am a DIYer and/or cheapskate so I would be buying used and/or DIYing. We have a big family room (living room/kitchen/dining) 42ft long x 18ft wide with 9-11ft ceilings. The system is more or less centred at one end on the 17ft wall and can sit 3-4ft forwards. The Minister of Finance and Pleasure will put up with excessive black panels in the family room. We mostly use it with streaming music or films via a generic non audiophile service.
Do I
A. Buy two sets of LRS/LRS+ and stack them, flipping the top pair upside down to align the tweeters and building a custom steel `scaffold' to support and keep them rigid. Or,
B. buy a used set of 3.6
I intend to build a couple of 10ft El Pipe-Os (pre approved). They have, to misquote a scene from the Gumball Rally, "Presence"...
Do I
A. Buy two sets of LRS/LRS+ and stack them, flipping the top pair upside down to align the tweeters and building a custom steel `scaffold' to support and keep them rigid. Or,
B. buy a used set of 3.6
I intend to build a couple of 10ft El Pipe-Os (pre approved). They have, to misquote a scene from the Gumball Rally, "Presence"...
You need to tell us what you are trying to improve.
The only real improvement I have made to the MG1.6 was to add 0.39 ohm tweeter resistors. That makes the speaker very coherent. I value coherency more than the bottom octave.
Ed
The only real improvement I have made to the MG1.6 was to add 0.39 ohm tweeter resistors. That makes the speaker very coherent. I value coherency more than the bottom octave.
Ed
Ummm.. I'll try to answer that, although to some extent it is that I have got used to them perhaps. I have had open baffle subs with them and appreciated the reinforcement at the lower end (so I will be doing that again).
I like what the 1.6s do: they have great highs and midrange but I'd like better imaging/soundstage, and a more full sound. I suspect a taller line source and some reinforcement in the bottom end might give me that. On the other hand I have not heard real ribbons, so there's that curiosity.
I like what the 1.6s do: they have great highs and midrange but I'd like better imaging/soundstage, and a more full sound. I suspect a taller line source and some reinforcement in the bottom end might give me that. On the other hand I have not heard real ribbons, so there's that curiosity.
As much as anything its and opportunity versus $ equation. I may be able to pick up a used set of 2.7/3.6 or maybe even 3.7s and enjoy the realities of a real ribbon. On the other hand, I have the ceiling height and the space to try a stacked pair, which I believe may accentuate the soundstage aspects. Just wondered if there was anyone who could make an informed comment.
As an aside I watched video above and am familiar with the open baffle subs as I have a set of NXOtica MTMs sitting on a pair of dual 12" servo subs. They are excellent, but lack the fine detail and finesse of the planars in some areas. I'd rather stay away from DSP - for no better reason than arbitrary preference.
As an aside I watched video above and am familiar with the open baffle subs as I have a set of NXOtica MTMs sitting on a pair of dual 12" servo subs. They are excellent, but lack the fine detail and finesse of the planars in some areas. I'd rather stay away from DSP - for no better reason than arbitrary preference.
The QR tweeter is a bit too wide. It beams above 8KHz. This is the trade-off in a 2-way.
The biggest problems I hear through the MG1.6s are the mixing, EQ, reverb, and compression in most recordings. Nothing can be done about that on the playback side.
Ed
The biggest problems I hear through the MG1.6s are the mixing, EQ, reverb, and compression in most recordings. Nothing can be done about that on the playback side.
Ed
The 2.7s do not have a 'true-ribbon' - all 3 of its drivers are wire/foil on mylar.
OTOH ... the IIIAs / 3.3s / 3.5s /3.6s / 3.7s & 3.7is do have a true-ribbon tweeter.
Hi Andy, This issue is already solved, with the recent acquisisiotn of MGIIIA.
That said, I am still curious in how a stacked quad of more recent QR systems like the LRS+ would compare to older ribbon and wire/mylar speakers. One might anticipate that a tall stacked quad of LRS+ or .7s would give a better approximation to a line source. On the other hand, maybe the way to go is a 2-way system with a long ribbon and line array of OB woofers with cross down somewhere around 1kHz. And then <80Hz with a big El-pipe-O. I can't see Magnepan leaving mylar panels though - its almost heresy.
That said, I am still curious in how a stacked quad of more recent QR systems like the LRS+ would compare to older ribbon and wire/mylar speakers. One might anticipate that a tall stacked quad of LRS+ or .7s would give a better approximation to a line source. On the other hand, maybe the way to go is a 2-way system with a long ribbon and line array of OB woofers with cross down somewhere around 1kHz. And then <80Hz with a big El-pipe-O. I can't see Magnepan leaving mylar panels though - its almost heresy.
None of the Magnepan models are really line-sources or line-arrays. Magnepan's are much more complicated in radiation pattern than a line source.
Stacking LRS's certainly won't get you there. What they would yield is 6db more SPL capability with the same distortion, or much reduced distortion with the same SPL.
If interested in line-arrays or line-sources for home use, something like the IDS-25 is the logical path.
But, MGIIIA's are a really good alternative......if they're still in good shape and working correctl.
Dave.
Stacking LRS's certainly won't get you there. What they would yield is 6db more SPL capability with the same distortion, or much reduced distortion with the same SPL.
If interested in line-arrays or line-sources for home use, something like the IDS-25 is the logical path.
But, MGIIIA's are a really good alternative......if they're still in good shape and working correctl.
Dave.
I am sure you are right. That said a stacked set of LRS would be relatively tall and narrow (at least in the Maggie world), and I was musing that it might help improve the specificity of the sound stage as imaging from my 1.6QRs and MGIIIAs is not great.
A quad of 3 series 57" ribbons (stacked 2 high) would get a stereo pair of 9ft sources that could be matched to a line array of small woofers in an OB, but this is getting beyond play money.
I am curious to know how a modern example of the QR construction stacks up against a ribbon though.
A quad of 3 series 57" ribbons (stacked 2 high) would get a stereo pair of 9ft sources that could be matched to a line array of small woofers in an OB, but this is getting beyond play money.
I am curious to know how a modern example of the QR construction stacks up against a ribbon though.
I wouldn't worry about soundstage. It is phony anyway on recordings created by mixing.
On recordings of acoustic instruments made with two microphones, the MG1.6 already performs the Jedi mind trick: This is not the recording you are listening to. 😉
Congratulations on the MGIIIA!
Ed
On recordings of acoustic instruments made with two microphones, the MG1.6 already performs the Jedi mind trick: This is not the recording you are listening to. 😉
Congratulations on the MGIIIA!
Ed
@BeardyWan Imaging is not really the strong point of big panel speakers. It's just not inherent in the physical nature of the transducers. If "imaging" is a primary concern, there are better speakers than Magnepan's.
But, being dipole, and with proper placement, they can create a huge amount of sound stage depth.....with the right recordings.
Dave.
But, being dipole, and with proper placement, they can create a huge amount of sound stage depth.....with the right recordings.
Dave.
These Ribbons! Looking for are you. Said the short green fellow with big ears
And yes imaging is not optimal and I have others that are better in this regard, BUT crucially, the planars have something special and hence the interest in a narrow tall variant. If the LRS had a true ribbon, I'd probably be well down that particular path by now.
And yes imaging is not optimal and I have others that are better in this regard, BUT crucially, the planars have something special and hence the interest in a narrow tall variant. If the LRS had a true ribbon, I'd probably be well down that particular path by now.
Don’t wild guess it like Nelson did, if you want optimum performance they will need to be modeled. Note: as a guess, Nelson's El Pipo with one driver is probably too small.
I have a miniEl Pipo project to give away to anyone can come pick them up. Only 8 ft tall, but i have the modeling to tune it right as an ML-TL. Comes with a budget Reckhorn active XO.
On the subject of stacking big planars, i preferred my Accoustat 2s after i converte dthem to 1+1 (with hwelper woofers)
A friend has triple QUAD 57s stacked vertically. Similar kind of thing.
dave
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the Maggie true-ribbons cross at much higher than 1kHz (basically, to protect them). That's why the spkrs they're used in ... are 3-ways.
The only exception was the 2.5/2.6 - a 2-way where the bass panel crossed over to a shorter ribbon at ~1kHz. It used a thicker aluminium than the full-length ribbons - to make it more robust, to be able to handle the lower frequencies it had to cover. As a result, it does not have as extended highs as the full-length ribbon.