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

Maggie 3 Series and Parasound P 5

50.139.226.154

Posted on February 20, 2015 at 04:38:26
HiOnFi
Audiophile

Posts: 1645
Location: Florida
Joined: January 11, 2004






Some of you might recall I have my 3.5Rs sideways, using only the bass panels, the mid/tweeter from Swan Diva IIs out front (see photo)

I've been running this from a Parasound P3 (now for sale in AA Trader)

My P 5 is scheduled for delivery today

I have a W4S MC 250/500. Been using the 500 portion to run both sets of speakers.

My question is...

Anybody using the P 5 bass management to biamp 4 channels?

Thanks

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: P 5 bass management to biamp 4 channels?, posted on February 21, 2015 at 18:17:50
JBen
Audiophile

Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
  Since:
July 26, 2010
Been meaning to reply to this since yesterday. Of all the beautiful virtues that the P5 has, this one may be a little bit of a stretch. I was intrigued by the P5 at one time.

Then, late last year, I was trying to locate a second B&W subwoofer for a friend in Craigslist locally. I found the subwoofer AND the seller also was the owner of a Parasound P5. To boot, the guy owned a few Maggies (then in storage) plus a pair of Apogee Duetta.

Heaven, I thought! I may have solved my [bass] worries at the time (too long a story). Not really. As it turned out the subwoofer part was escaping him. I even tried to help him in his frustration. Super enchanting as the P5 can be, there's no practical way to control timings in analog, to sync the subwoofer properly...AND there's no subwoofer or bass L/R output either. It is just one typical summed subwoofer output, great as it may sound.

I did tell him what had worked best for me: place the subwoofer(s) at the same plane of the planars. In this case, the Duettas. It was tough to do so in his place but he eventually tried it later and that worked. Now, his are "subwoofers", not large Maggies.

So, in theory you could do the same, move the Divas & Maggies to about the same plane and feed the Maggies the summed subwoofer bass signal...not that I am tickled pink by the latter.

Still, two things would worry me:
1. Loss of opportunity. It would be great if we could find a discreet L/R bass signal for each Maggie. I don't see a TV there, music could use better than a summed signal...me thinks.

2. Depending on crossover point, some unneeded distortion may happen on the Maggies bass driver. If I understood you right, you are running the bass panels but there's no signal going to the midrange? I wish I could show you the dynamic behavior of a shared Mylar diaphragm in such a situation. It is likely that the distortion on the Mylar panel output is much higher than it should be. (If so, a "cure" could be to power the midrange but without a music signal, which could damp its movement and arrest mechanical interferences.)

Hmmm, the more I think about it, the more item #2 above may deserve great attention. The higher you cross the signal at the Maggies, the worse the distortion. If you went to all this trouble to take out the Diva's bottom out of the equation...darn, let's make sure that the Maggies' midrange is not causing artifacts.

I hope that this made some sense but please ask if not.



 

RE: P 5 bass management to biamp 4 channels?, posted on February 22, 2015 at 05:34:01
HiOnFi
Audiophile

Posts: 1645
Location: Florida
Joined: January 11, 2004
Very helpful

Thank you

FYI: The 3.5s are true ribbons, with separate bass panels

FYI, originally I had the 3.5s near the same plain as the Swans, as I moved them farther away the bass integrated better. But when I turned them horizontally, I got substantial bass reinforcement

Keep in mind that the area from the Swans to my front wall is 6'8" x 19 wide with a 10' peak to the vaulted open-beam ceiling. Beyond this area another 24' x 19, all wide open- no back wall coupling to take advantage of. Adding to the problem, the entire 'back wall' is windows floor to ceiling which wrap back 7 and 9ft toward the middle of the room.

Getting music to sound right 'here' is a challenge

It is when I moved the 3.5s closer to the front wall that the bass solidified and integrated.

It appears the P5 provides volume with the bass management. That alone should help integration considerably. And i does provide several XO points

To solve the independent l/r bass controls how about 2 P5s, each in mono? Still pretty reasonable price-wise

FYI the Swans are biwired, so no problem taking the bass out at all. I suppose I could try integrating the P5 bass management on them as well;)

Eventually, I will try the 3.5s full-range, by themselves, vertically in their normal position.

It is clear now that the P3 just wasn't potent enough for this room. It is/was better than any passive pres I tried, both transformer and trans-less

I am working on a preliminary review, which I will post in AA Review area soon

 

RE: P 5 bass management to biamp 4 channels?, posted on March 5, 2015 at 23:36:01
pictureguy
Audiophile

Posts: 22597
Location: SoCal
Joined: October 19, 2008
My P5 is connected to a SINGLE sub which is crossed fairly low. You cannot localizee and I doubt that FOR ME any practical advantage exists for L/R bass channels. My understanding is that music is summed / mono below about 80hz Anyway.
for my system, the OVERTONES provide spacial cues. And adding the sub SOMEHOW really improves that aspect of what I hear.
Sub location is critical and I struck gold with the 3rd try. It doesn't hurt that I have an otherwise AWFUL space. Very Asymmetric, 8 sides and some 45degree walls.

The other advantage of the P5 is being able to LOW CUT the main speakers. Doing away with that basically UnControlled overlap finally cleared up ANY bass bloat and 'one note-ness' remaining.
Too much is never enough

 

RE: P 5 bass management to biamp 4 channels?, posted on March 6, 2015 at 07:57:31
JBen
Audiophile

Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
  Since:
July 26, 2010
Pix, to be sure, I have a regularly shaped room, which as you know makes things more practical. Now, I launched this "woofers project" of mine a few weeks ago. Even though I am testing several configurations, I still expected that a dual (stereo L/R) sealed woofers set would prove best. So far, that is being the case; when music is the ONLY, "uncompromised" goal.

However, for this to be unequivocally evident, each woofer HAS to be aiming forward, AND placed at the plane of its corresponding MMG or close enough. (With no space to the MMG sides, in my case "close enough" is right in front of each MMG, <1" separation. It works because each sealed enclosure is 6" deep [14x17x6]. Unhappily, with this frontal placement...hmmm...I am having nightmares on achieving the "WAF-required parameters" :-))

Importantly, it is not so much the strength "bass" itself, which would come easily. It is the seamless joint clarity and the ability to resolve instrumental textures down the frequency scale as ONE speaker. These are clearly better when on discreet bass L/R signals. Admittedly, I have not yet reached a point where I prefer the combo to my MMGs playing alone in all cases. Yet, it is a surprising that I seem to be so close to it, this soon into the process.

Comparisons are reliably made because I have parallel, level-matched feeds. While listening, I can cleanly switch on the fly to a summed bass signal -- which BTW is still FAR better than any subwoofer I've tried with music -- and back to a stereo bass.

When I get a couple of practical options defined I'll post some reference & pointers. This whole kind of thing needs to be tailored to individual situations...right, what else is new. Meanwhile, yesterday's tests were rather encouraging both in sound and in measurements. Here's a L/R sweep of a config that will require just a little more polishing to be made a "keeper". Of course, it is the little things that kill us...



 

Page processed in 0.017 seconds.