Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
24.13.197.89
In Reply to: RE: off topic to the tympani discussion posted by Satie on December 15, 2014 at 10:11:11
Yeah, my third iteration toed the front speaker in (the 3.7i definitely likes toe in). This got the bass panels more in line rather than stretching the bass backward and muddying up the time alignment quite so much. Still not world class bass though.
So the fronts are angled directly at me about seven feet apart. The sides are currently at almost a Roose set up with I would guess a 110 degree angle or so off the fronts. This places the tweets on the side firing speakers within 15 inches of the side wall. I experimented with some absorbing materials on the side walls.
The resulting sound is definitely not bass heavy. Indeed I can get more bass by adding my DWMs (which I am not using currently). There is still a small and pleasant presence dip which seems inherent in the 3.7i in my room (the newest Maggies are much smoother than my 25 year old pair). I kind of like the very mild boost over 5000 hz.
I suspect the Achilles heel of this setup is I can't get both the bass time aligned and the upper range side firing at the same time.
That said, it really sounds realistic. Guitars are THERE. Brass is palpable. Vocalists have weight and air around their heads like I have never heard before.
Oddly, in a way, the MaggieS sound more like a conventional speaker than normal. The operative word seems to be less EPHEMERAL.
I have not tried tweets to the front as I fear it will stretch the bass out even more. I can though.
Any other ideas? Does anyone else have two pairs?
Follow Ups:
I think what you are getting in the sense of more concrete thick midbass and lower mids and the box like thickness to the sound there is the result of changing from cardioid to side-pole or cross cardioid pattern that is like a half of an omnidirectional - like a box speaker is omni' below a certain frequency. But with the other half circle of radiation being out of phase.
If the half-omni idea is a useful model, then pulling the "wing" inwards to make a "T" with the center (or a bit less than center) of the front facing bass panel might improve timing (take it as a WAG) as it gets the "virtual" center of the half omni closer to the centers of the two panels. It would also get the tweeters away from the sidewalls, which I think is important. Of course there are all sorts of reflection issues that were confined to the back waves which might spoil things, but it is worth a try.
I guess you will need to lift the side speakers with little blocks to get over the front speaker's legs, if you have not done so already.
If I come up with any more speculations and potential tweaks to the setup I will post them.
Simple experiment although as in ANY speaker set up experimentation is absolutely necessary to adapt to different room environments.
Still there will always be armchair theorists......
Hey, I would of loved to try this myself but don't have 2 big maggies to play with.
So I am going on vicariously and trying to guess which way to go so Swami gets better performance. Part of that is speculating on the causes of what he observed in the context of what he did. Hopefully what I am doing is helping.
If it sounds like gibberish it is probably because most of it will eventually prove to be just that.
It is fun playing around with the combos of two sets of speakers.
Tried the 3a's alone for the first time in months. I was amazed at how much better the new models were in dynamics. I only noticed it after living with the better speaker for so long. Even with DWMs (or without) the 3a simply cannot manage the dynamic realism of the 3.7i. It is like there is a pillow over the speaker bluring micro dynamics and transient attack.
Latest two set experiment was to try the T setup. What I did was move the side firing speakers up 8 inches or so and put them in a pure Rooze set up (panels exactly side on to listening position so I can only hear reflections). This got the woofers roughly aligned as Satie suggested (I think)
The effect of the second pair is real subtle now. Slightly tilts up highest treble and adds air and three dimensionally to the instruments and vocals. Also still stretches the soundstage wider. It adds power much more so than volume. Indeed I repeatedly forgot if I had the ambience speakers on or off.
So far I prefer the 3.7i alone the best (8 feet from FW (40%),15 inches from SW toed in almost to listening position -- kind of a modified Limage)
Close second is the 3.7i with the 3a as ambience speakers as above.
Third place would be the 3a with DWM and fourth would be the 3a alone.
Each has strengths and weaknesses though. For example the lower bass on the 3a is killer.
Still playing. I really want to experiment with the two sets of speakers before moving my old ones upstairs.
Works with smaller 'pans too, or even mismatched models. Originally tried as a replacement for tymps. To add to options try removing tweeter fuse
.
Very good to know. I was wondering if that T setup would create more problems than it solves. Can you post a pic of the setup so we can see the geometry in the context of the room?
Have you tried the tweeter to tweeter positioning? Flipping the side speaker to tweeter closer to the listener on the outside (not a T setup.
Thanks
Last night I moved the extra speakers out of the room and went back to the 3.7i alone set up in the position which I have found optimal out of hundreds of experiments (see above)
I immediately felt something was missing. The single Maggies seemed strained in comparison. Images seemed more two dimensional and thinner. The stage was deep, but the furthest back images were kind of painted on the wall. Subtle instruments seemed buried in the mix and hard panned stereo seemed to come out of the speakers. I could play them plenty loud, but I had to play them much louder to get the same power (if this makes sense).
I then brought the second pair back in, this time bringing them further up (9 feet) and closer in to get the side firing speakers further from the wall. I have up on the T and went back to the L.
The best way to describe (via exaggeration) the difference is imagine going from a mini Maggie to the large Sound Labs. From a mini monitor to the largest Wilson or Focals. There is substantially more power and weight and dimensionality to the instruments and singers. More presence. This is especially prominent on the sounds coming from the edges of the stage (which are produced almost exclusively by one speaker in a conventional set up).
There is no boxiness at all. Absolutely none. Just more weight. More realism. Less transparency (less ephemeral quality) of imaging. It is kind of startling.
No it is not perfect. No I am not sure I will keep it. No I haven't perfected everything yet (I've tried less than a half dozen positions and I am still using 25 feet of thin lamp cord to connect the second pair). No I don't want to give up my second audio room.
On the other hand. I strongly recommend everyone who can try this do so.
The funny thing is that my very first audio speakers were stacked Advents. Thirty Five years later I am listening to stacked Maggies.
Here is a photo of the most recent set up.
Two more sets and you can make a box...
So the benefit of the T setup before was simply moving the wing speaker's tweeters away from the sidewalls?
Thanks so much for posting these experiments.
It is obvious that you can have one listening room that you want to listen in, or two that leave you wanting and reminiscing about the setup that was...
Perhaps a different flavor speaker for the other room? Classic Klipsch of some type?
PS. Christmas ficus is fun.
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: