Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
71.187.201.31
In Reply to: RE: TAS Reviews the Magnepan 20.7 posted by nicoff on November 24, 2014 at 20:51:47
If that's what the reviewer said that's a foolish statement. It may be a wonderful speaker(wouldn't surprise me)but no speaker is perfect. And for 80 grand or even the cost of the 20.7 there are obviously speakers that some listeners would prefer because they value the virtues of other speakers more than the 20.7 virtues. I hope you misquoted and the review isn't as absolutist as you imply.
Follow Ups:
From the quote,
"In fact, I believe that the only true competition comes from speakers costing in excess of $80,000..."
The third word, "I", makes it a good enough statement. I mean...only an idiot would say something like, "it is the best speaker under 80,000". When I read the latter, I always interject "he's stating his opinion" and I hope that is what the writer meant.
Some people just need to make up their own minds. Shouldn't be that hard unless you have Lemming DNA in you. :)
Here is the exact quote:
"Summing Up
As you have read, I believe the 20.7s are a complete success. They are the first full-range planars, of any design, that I have heard that are fully satisfying from lowest to highest frequency, from small chamber ensemble to largest orchestra and chorus, from jazz soloist to kick-ass rock and roll band. They are not perfect and they do not do everything as well as some of the most ex- pensive dynamic and horn speaker systems. They do not have quite the dynamic extremes of these other designs, nor quite the low-level detail of the best minis or electrostats. But, in the real world and for most listening rooms, these differences are minor. Moreover, the dynamic contrasts and detail resolution of the 20.7s are so good that the only speakers that could possibly give them a run for the money cost many multiples of the $13,850 list price of the 20.7s. In fact, I believe that the only true competition comes from speakers costing in excess of $80,000, and even then the Maggies will continue to excel in many respects."
If it's true, it's a break through. I can't comment more until I get a chance to hear then perform. And even that's dangerous unless you have a chance to live with a product; If a show demo, for example is great, then the product is great. If it's not there are so many things in a complex system that can be off that you don't know if gear is great or not. It will be interesting to see how this review fares in the future.
The .7 series is an entirely different approach to crossovers for magnepan, which they had not done since the 80s. with 1st order XOs, the German tests show nearly no phase throughout most of the speaker's range above the mid high pass. An achievement all on its own.
I would be a believer that it is a breakthrough, but there is still the giant radiating surface of the bass panel which limits imaging precision. I wish they had the bass on a separate panel so you could time align and aim the center of the bass at the same distance as the mid and tweeter. Perhaps with the new aiming arrangement (on axis rather than face forwards) it is close enough to equidistant. It is similar to what I normally do with my Tympani/Neo8 (equidistant drivers and 1st order XO) and I find it difficult to find anything that comes close to its performance let alone betters it outside of bass extension and dynamics.
"The .7 series is an entirely different approach to crossovers for Magnepan, which they had not done since the 80s. with 1st order XOs, the German tests show nearly no phase throughout most of the speaker's range above the mid high pass. An achievement all on its own."
Not really. A first-order acoustic crossover has (inherently) no phase shift in its range. There's no special achievement there.
With the proper alignment, even the impedance phase angle will be level throughout the crossover range.
However, you are correct to note that the large radiating surface guarantee's less precise imaging than might be obtained with other (more conventional) speaker systems. This is another inherent trade-off in the design that can't be engineered out with crossover design or equalization or any other technique.
Time alignment is not is not an issue with regard to the bass panels because of the wavelengths involved and the crossover frequency chosen.
Cheers,
Dave.
Do you really think they left the LPs out of mid XO? If so, wouldn't the 1st order tweeter HP show up in the impedance and phase? Or do you think they put a zoebel network to iron out phase?
I have put my Tympani bass panels in equidistant arc setups with the mids and tweeters and used 1st order slopes in symmetrical and spaced alignments. It makes a very significant difference in image precision. It is very obviously lacking in the Limage setup where it turned out better to just cut it off with an LR4 and forget about time alignment. I trade off a bit of the fine imaging performance for an order of magnitude more bass.
Has anybody seen the crossover network for the 20.7? How do you know it's even first-order? :) How do you know if there's a Zobel in use or not?
As usual, your postings are full of speculation with no valid data points to back it up.
I was commenting on the theoretical alignments of generic first-order crossovers. However, I have no knowledge of whether the Maggie 20.7 employs this topology or not. It's very clear that no specific information will ever be forthcoming from Magnepan, so we're waiting on a knowledgeable user to divulge this at some point.
Cheers,
Dave.
Of course they didn't say. But the rumor mill keeps coming up with 1st order series XO. Also implying this is the new recommended aim for the 20.7 to be set on axis rather than face forward with minor toe in, as they had suggested for placing the 20.1.
There is no other option but to speculate since we can't expect anyone to void their warranty by looking inside. I know it gets on your nerves, but that is what is available to us, possibly not better than nothing.
You can't extrapolate on meaningless data. ;)
Regardless, a 1st order crossover with "no phase throughout most....." is not an "achievement"....that characteristic is inherent. It would be an achievement if it WASN'T a zero phase angle.
Besides, I think we've already found errors in the respective German test reports you mention. So, I wouldn't take it as a given their measured phase response is even accurate. :)
When the TAS 20.7 review appears online, I will be interested to read it.
Dave.
Who is the reviewer?
Alan
Don Saltzman is the reviewer and it's quite extensive at eight pages.
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: