Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison

173.29.98.251

Posted on February 8, 2014 at 19:04:18
Tom §.
Audiophile

Posts: 744
Location: Iowa
Joined: September 30, 1999
I've had a few days of directly comparing the latest version of the MMG (bought in May '13) and a freshly manufactured super MMG system (1 DWM) in the same room*. I've experienced 4 configurations:
1) MMG
2) MMG plus DWM (placed in the center)
3) Super MMG plus DWM
4) Super MMG alone

I think there are 2 things to emphasize about the DWM: it shouldn't be treated as a subwoofer (maybe already known if you've made it to reading this) and its significant upper bass output makes it function as a derived center channel that anchors imaging.

If you already have a pair of MMGs and are thinking about just adding a DWM then do yourself a favor...don't. Yes, it does add more oomph and I can certainly understand how one could form a preference of a MMG/DWM system over an MMG setup alone. The effect I noticed is that while the DWM adds more bass energy, it also adds more upper bass that comb filters with the MMG's output. The resulting sound is richer but is also less precise than just an MMG system or SMMG. I think one would be far better off selling or, if possible, trading in for a SMMG system proper.

The SMMG panels with the DWM in the center is a significantly different experience from an MMG pair alone. It creates a more robust center image due to the DWM upper bass output. This output is blended well with the L/R SMMG panels' roll-off. It makes one wonder if the SMMG's crossover may also be properly phased with the DWM when compared to the MMGs. Anyway, the SMMG L/R panels by themselves do sound quite a bit like MMGs, only slightly leaner. I would not be surprised if they would function quite well with a subwoofer by themselves.


*The room is 10x12 with absorptive acoustic panels directly behind the speakers at the back wall and at the first reflection points along with tri-corner traps to the ceiling. The speakers are roughly 3' out from the side and back walls on the shorter end.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on February 9, 2014 at 17:26:58
Toycostalota
Audiophile

Posts: 75
Location: Pinehurst, NC
Joined: April 27, 2001
Thanks Tom: I've bean waiting for someone to compare the SMMG/MMG/WMD combinations. I got some MMGs in October and just pulled the trigger on a small 8in. sub after reading your post. Mike

 

RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on March 7, 2014 at 21:24:28
jarvissound
Industry Professional

Posts: 49
Location: New York City
Joined: April 29, 2004
Tom I think you really hit it on the nailhead....I've owned everything from MMG's to 1.6's to 20.1's, and I'm most happy in my room with MMG's and subs, and have been playing with open baffle cone drivers to supplement the mid bass. Here is how I look at it:

To my ear the Maggie true ribbon is probably more detailed than the QR's, but for whatever reason I find the Ribbon to be less neutral. Sometimes it sounds celestial, and sometimes it sticks out like a sore thumb. While it is very tinkly, I think there are some resonances in that tweeter that aren't so great.

As some others have stated, I think the MMG is arguably as good as any speaker Magnepan makes--BUT--it is severely limited in excursion/output capability in the bass and even up into the mid bass. It all depends on how loud you want to play.

At reasonable levels(say 90-95 dBa peak), my Bag End ELF subs crossed into the MMG's at 63Hz do great, but even at those levels you'll find that if you mute the amp driving the sub you will hear some MMG IM distortion and over excursion of the panel, which is why I'm playing with adding a 12" or possibly an 18" open baffle mid bass section to the system for listening over 95dB peak.

Here is the Maggie secret nobody wants to admit: DWM's, or 1.7's, or 3.7's or 20.7's only have a few more dB output capability than an MMG at these lower frequencies! No matter what system you have, you are PISSING IN THE WIND trying to push any serious SPL at frequencies below 100Hz through any of these speakers. The excursion limits and dipole cancellation severely limit the output, and that is all there is to it. I do not dispute that what bass there is sounds beautiful, but there is only so much of it. So if you are listening to string chamber music, or acoustic guitars, or a cappella voice they are perfect. Beyond that--you need to move a hell of a lot more air than a Maggie can move, and below 60 or 70 Hz, you are going to need a monopole woofer unless you want to have sixteen 18" woofers in your living room, which would definitely be cool.

You can rock Pink Floyd at concert levels with MMG's with them crossed over at 300Hz into an open baffle cone mid bass system, then crossing over into a below-resonance sealed system such as the bag end with 99% of the advantages of a dipole system, but with the slam of a box system. Just be sure you have a TON of power(I run 1400 WPC into my MMG's, plus mid bass, plus subs), good active crossovers, and good ears to tweak it to your liking. You don't need to spend a ton of money in my opinion.

Best,
Brett

 

RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on March 11, 2014 at 21:20:45
JBen
Audiophile

Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
  Since:
July 26, 2010
Thanks for the input, much appreciated, Tom!

Darn it! I wish I had been around earlier to see it and suggest that you try a couple of things. Since it was posted weeks ago I guess you no longer have the ability to make more comparisons. If you do, please let us know.

In any event, how's it going with what you kept?

 

RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on March 11, 2014 at 23:09:23
JBen
Audiophile

Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
  Since:
July 26, 2010
Brett, I sympathize with your thoughts and approaches on this. For example, on your observations about the ribbon & QR tweeters. It is interesting that the wrong room environment, equipment, positioning, etc. can easily negate the advantages of a ribbon tweeter. There probably are many of us familiar with the "feeling of disappointment" in not hearing the true magic of a ribbon tweeter from some Maggie systems. Then, of course, there is true joy when a system does deliver it.

I fully agree that the QR tweeter in MMGs -- or in other Maggies -- is capable of tremendously sweet and solid performance. It takes "tweak work" to fully extract it. Yet, the potential is there...and it is well worth pursuing. It was a goal of mine since day one with my 1999 vintage MMGs and I've been lucky to get very very far. I would not trade them for anything short of 3.7s, or perhaps the 3.6s...and I would still need to mod either of them.

Importantly, like you and Tom seem to understand well, a QR tweeter can only go as far as the mechanical intermodulation allows it to. Sharing the Mylar compromises ALL the driver sections in it. There is no way around this. (Hmmm, I need to buy lotto tickets...the 20.x series solves this!:-))

Yet, I wholeheartedly agree that if you unload some signal from the larger driver that shares the Mylar with the tweeter driver, you will be rewarded. That Mylar sheet may then deliver clarity, textures, imaging and dynamic impact that will belie the shared diaphragm's design. The point is that you are on the right track. The only thing I do not know is if you really need to cross the sub so high. (It is a pity when one has to kill a perfectly delightful range in order to sweeten the higher registers.)

Ironically, your comment "...what bass there is sounds beautiful, but there is only so much of it." is not only true but also addresses the source of a former major challenge for me.

Long ago, after I solved the "top end clarity", it was damn frustrating that such beautiful, textured bass can't easily be had in huge quantities...or at least kept at "merely adequate" levels. Well, it WAS frustrating but it is no longer so. Largely, because I was able to exploit room features and to apply acoustic tweaks to extract more bass (while actually using less bass-range signal).

It works, in part, because the original design of my MMG outputs decent bass to 40hz. I fear that perhaps the ones made later, in the 2000-10 years, don't. Some of us are trying to find out. If some of the same bass low reach is there, even if faint, it may be usable. It can be boosted acoustically (and mechanically) for better presence and, in some cases, quite some dynamic punch.

In my case, a number of "lucky factors" came into play. So, the MMGs now delight with their own textured bass, shake the sofa and even punch you a little, deliver "true ribbon tweeter performance" at times and always throw a huge realistic 3D soundstage that stays crystal clear well >100db.

This is all with the subwoofer off...and my delight would be to find ways to make more folks able to do the same or better. It sounds to me like you are on the right track. Keep tweaking it and your MMG system will keep delivering more goodies as you go.





 

RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on March 17, 2014 at 11:59:13
Tom §.
Audiophile

Posts: 744
Location: Iowa
Joined: September 30, 1999
Ultimately I ended up with 2nd DWM. The extra stability and fullness is worth it. After hearing a pair of MG-1Cs in another room, I'm pretty sure a 1.6 or 1.7 would be too large for the 10x12 room.

Since I also have a MMGC and MMGWs I fooled around with tri-center for a bit. I think there's something there but I think Magnepan ought to come up with a finished product version of it that is a single amplifier channel solution. There's too much that can go wrong with speaker balancing.

 

RE: A brief Super MMG and MMG comparison, posted on April 18, 2014 at 21:08:20
jarvissound
Industry Professional

Posts: 49
Location: New York City
Joined: April 29, 2004
I'm with you Jben....good comments. Sorry so long in responding; I don't get on here much. I have to say though that I'm more and more convinced that a Bag End ELF active setup chipped to 63 Hz is heaven on Earth with these MMG's. In this active setup, I swear I'm happier with these than I was with the 20.1's, even with the subs. I'm going to order some of the new three way MMG's and see how I like them....For that silly cheap money it is a no-brainer.

Best,
Brett

 

Page processed in 0.025 seconds.