Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
83.226.133.15
In Reply to: RE: Tympani 1d ad posted by Norman M on August 03, 2012 at 10:20:05
Why would a pair of Tympanis cost $40k? The drivers are just like any other Magnepan, just an additional bass driver and a push-pull tweeter than is far from the ribbon tweeter of later models. It seems that a 20.7 have about the same numbers of magnets as the Tympanis. Why should it be more expensive to build Tympanis than 20.7?
Roger Gustavsson
Follow Ups:
Well, it's definitely more expensive. I asked Jim Winey about that and he said it's a lot like making three pairs of Maggies. Not the materials so much I think as the labor, that's three panels to be routed and installed, four drivers to be built and installed. Plus bigger boxes, higher shipping, three socks, extra wood trim pieces, etc. So while the $40,000 figure sounds too high to me too, it would have to cost more than a 20.7. Escalating cost was the original reason they stopped making them (this also according to Jim Winey, in a magazine interview years ago).
Still sounds strange to me. A three-panel Tympani I-D is not more complicated than building three MG 1.7. Sure, it will be about three times more expensive but far from $40000! I think the MG-models are more complicate to build than those single driver Tympani-panels. I think, the main reason Magnepan stopped producing Tympanis may be the size of the speakers, they were BIG. Not everyone would accept such large speakers!
Roger Gustavsson
a level 3 difficulty convincing the wife to shoe horn those in the livingroom.
If you thought slippin' in a pair of 1.6's past her was difficult, try six 20.7s!
No doubt they'd sound fantastic I'm thinking...
may the bridges I burn light the way...
Yeah, they appeal mostly to people with dedicated sound rooms. Naturally, that limits the market.
Now, if they designed living rooms right, they'd have acoustically transparent projection screen fabric along one wall, with a few feet behind it. So you could put your speakers behind the screen, and no one would be the wiser, and also use it with a projector for home theater -- all without your wife ever catching on. (Of course, she'd want to know why she couldn't put a sofa against it, and hang pictures in the middle . . . )
Well, yeah, the $40,000 is too high. It would be more expensive than the 20.7, though.
I asked Jim Winey about it. I'd read an interview years ago in which he said that the Tympanis had gotten too expensive to make and when I asked him, he confirmed that.
If you're talking a new Tympani, say you're talking the same technology as in the 20.7, plus one extra driver. So you start with the cost of a 20.7, then add the driver, the extra frames, shipping, bigger boxes, driver testing, etc. In addition, as you said, they're big and either need a dedicated room, or something with which to blackmail your wife. The smaller the model the more they sell so as you say they wouldn't sell as many Tympanis as 20.7's. That means that R&D has to be amortized over fewer units and it would presumably be more expensive on that count too. Then they'd need some new tooling, CNC programming, etc. -- not sure what if anything they still have that they could reuse. All of that means it would have to be more expensive than the 20.7's, though not I think $40,000.
The market has changed -- expensive speakers are selling well, many much pricier -- so I don't think they'd have any trouble selling them today. Wendell's concern with the price has more to do with the company's reputation for value. He takes that very seriously and its integral to their philosophy, going back to Jim Winey who told me that he doesn't want to be a company that sells only a few ultra-high-priced speakers like most other high end speaker companies.
There are also some other arguments against, e.g., would dealers make room to show them. At this point, a lot of people can't even hear the 20.7's. They also have limited resources and other new products they're working on, so they have to decide if it's the best use of their resources. Still, as others have reported, it's been under consideration.
An 20.7 with an extra bass driver should not double the price of the 20.7. They can just build a 20.7 without the mid and tweeter section. Tooling and CNC-programming should not be necessary as I see it. I do not believe they would make a large number of speakers in this price categori... How many Tympanis were made? How many 20.1?
Roger Gustavsson
I assume a Tympani would be three panels, but of course that isn't certain, they could do something like you suggest, e.g., a double 20.7.
In any case, even a three panel Tympani probably wouldn't cost twice as much as a 20.7. But it would be more expensive.
According to Wendell, the smaller the speaker, the more they sell. I doubt very much they'd do this without tooling, doing everything by hand would drive the price into the stratosphere. They do have equipment in the repair department that can be used to repair models that are no longer in production but it isn't part of the regular factory workflow, where speakers are made in batches of a model at specialized stations.
Well Josh, you have been to the factory. Pictures of it show some jigs, a streching table for the Mylar, how they sort the plastic bonded magnets, the CNC milling machine etc. The production seems to rely on charing as many parts as possible. The magnets, the perforated sheet metal, the particle board etc. There seems to be a lot of manual work involved, like glueing the wire to the Mylar. The push-pull drivers need special jigs, the hinged ones. Most of these manufactoring steps can be replicated at home. What is difficult, it is to get the know-how that come by trial and error. Just look at the 3.7 and how it is different from the earlier designs. The tension/clamping of the diaphragm must have taken some time to optimise!Tympanis before the IV, had some panels requireing more work than later ones. Sure, nowdays, they buy the perforated sheet metal customised. The first years they used standard sheet metal. The drivers of I-C, IIIA, I-D and IIIB are very similar. 12x60" (bass) or 8x48" (tweeters) sheet metal, spacers of 1/8" particle board, magnets has the same dimensions etc.
Roger Gustavsson
Edits: 08/04/12
Yep. Their assembly line is optimized for small scale batch manufacturing, e.g., they can swap out a jig at a station and work on 3.7's while the other station is working on 1.7's. It's a very professional factory operation and over the years they've learned many tricks to improve efficiency and economy. The skill of the factory staff is impressive as well -- they work with impressive speed and have a great knowledge of what to check, pitfalls, etc.
There's lots of black art in the design and manufacturing. Every time I talk to Wendell I learn something else that I didn't know about why they do what they do.
I can't imagine where they find the time to do the R&D. But I know they've done an immense amount of it over the years, because whenever I suggest an idea or one of us mentions something here Wendell says "Oh, yeah, Jim Winey tried that a few decades ago." They're inveterate tinkerers and have tried lots of stuff that we don't always see, e.g., Wendell said a little while back that Jim has been experimenting with Maggie headphones for years.
They definitely standardize as much as possible. Mark Winey said that one of the requirements for the .7's was that they have the same form factor as the earlier models. That way, they could use many of the same jigs, as well as boxes, magnets, MDF, perforated metal, etc.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: