Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
104.58.182.221
Magnlanar MG II, firstversion. As posted below, I purchased this pair for $200 via Craigslist. I was able to feel the upper and lower surfaces of the panels to determine that delamination had not occurred. I got them home and installed them in my room, in place of my standard speakers- a pair of Triangle Titus 202 run full range, backed by a pr of AR3a used as subwoofers. Initially the Maggie's were positioned in approximately the same place as the Triangles; abt 7ft from me and 7ft apart. I was initially apprehensive regarding power, as I am using a pr of Cary monoblocks rated for 40wpc. I put on a mono recording and began to fine tune positioning. I toed them in a few degrees and all seemed fine- I had a strong central image which was my goal.
Initial impressions were mixed. Volume was fine- abt a few db lower than the Triangles, which was acceptable. Soundstage extended beyond the the width of the panels, but depth was restricted to the plane of the speakers, no deeper. Bass was attenuated as expected. Treble response was lacking. Cymbal shimmer and brass overtones were noticeably diminished. And while there was image height, for the most part, sound was mostly restricted to the space between the panels.
On the other hand, sound placement was pinpoint specific and soloists were firmly anchored in front of me.
One of my selections was Anita O'Day and Billy May play Cole Porter. Verve Stereo. This recording exhibits what I call the Verve Halo Effect. Verve tended to close-mike the singer and then arrange the orchestra around the singer but in the background of the stage. Sonically it can sound like the singer is under a spotlight. The Maggie's exaggerated this effect resulting in Anita's image floating above the orchestra to an unnatural degree. Enough for one day.
I started today's session by moving the speakers farther away from me and farther apart. Basically a 10 ft triangle, with a slight toe in, and several feet away from room boundaries. Sonics were improved. I now had a big wide soundstage, and a realistic degree of height. Some acoustic sounds- drum head, struck blocks, pluck of a guitar string- were very realistic. Bass was still lacking, as was treble. I noticed that some vocals were a little recessed. Based upon what I heard, I would describe the frequency response as bowl shaped, with the shallowest part in the upper bass, extending to the low midrange. "Muffled" came to mind more than once.
The above may read like a negative review, but the MG IIs do some things better than the Triangles: Image height and placement are more realistic, reproduction of some acoustic sounds is noticeably more real. Unfortunately the good is offset by the bad. Depressed treble response robs some of the impact of what is otherwise very good transient response and image depth is noticeably lacking, both in stereo and mono. My system is capable of reproducing a sense of "depth" from mono recordings; I heard none of this from the Maggie's.
In re reading the above, again it may seem to be negative, but overall the Maggies are a pleasant sounding speaker. However to me and in my room, they lack the excitement that I experience with my usual setup. On the other hand, I realize that planers are different and may even require a recalibration of one's sonic expectations. Thus I wonder if some of the issues noted above are due to my unfamiliarity with the speakers and how they reproduce music.
I will continue to listen and report back.
Follow Ups:
Maggies can be placed any of FOUR different ways. Than adjusted till you go nuts for azimuth, spacing, distance to wall and so forth.
1. Mylar TO you, tweeters in
2. Mylar TO you, tweeters OUT
3. Pole Piece to you, tweeters out
4 Poli Piece to you, tweeters IN.
Original Maggies were SHIPPED with the intent that pole pieces face the listener. My MG-1s were shipped marked as LEFT and RIGHT and sounded best when placed that way with ONE exception.
The above setups will effect image, extension and instrument placement in the sound field. With a good recording, I have sound extending well beyond the physical limits of the speakers.
Sometime later, they decided you should be listening to the Mylar side. I experimented with all four logical setups with my 1.6s and ended up listening to the mylar side with tweeters IN.
You may want to go thru a similar evolution and TAKE GOOD NOTES.
One model that I know of has a pole piece on BOTH sides and that is the 20 series. I don't know about the original 20, but the Point 1 and Point 7 are 'push pull' panels.
Too much is never enough
I assume the "front" is Mylar facing me and pole side would be where I connect speaker cables.
How do I determine whether the tweeters are on the inside or outside when the front is facing me ?
Thanks,
Ross
You can shine a LIGHT thru the sock and see what's what.
The tweeter side of the panel will have a finer wire more densly packed and might only be 2" wide while the looser weave will be the mid/bass part of the panel.
If you can't see ANY wire, you are looking at the Pole Piece. That's a dark piece of steel with perforations for sound to go thru.
Link is to maggie models and shows the MGII specs and dates of manufacture. They are of the vintage where the intent was to listen to the Pole Piece side. The connections are on the side with the ONLY Mylar showing.
Still and all, give the different orientations a try. Here is the link to various maggie models so you can see where yours fit in.
Too much is never enough
The room itself has a great influence as does subwoofer integration. Maggie's are rather fussy to get them in their fen shui spots. Within this is ones sitting position in relation to the planars, I find that the ribbons on the inside will render the best upper frequency response (opinion) and that the listeners ears need to be more than 1/2 way up the panels. I like them tilted a bit forward, just a few degrees to also get the ribbons directed into the room and towards the listener.
Moving the toe in, toe out by minor amounts can make a huge difference in the soundstage and again when the fen shui is achieved the walls disappear.
Jim
ARS VS-110
Customized Bottlehead Foreplay II Preamp
Magnepan 2.5R's
B&W ASW 300 Subs
Ah Troeb Tube CD player
MaggieMate X/O's from subs to 2.5R's
No measurements, but definite impressions:
MG-II: Subjectively, they do seem to lack hi freq extension, compared to the Epicure 10's they replaced (Epicures had deeper bass also).
MG-IIA: Better hi freg extension than -II, but still lacking.
MG-3 and -3.6: Worlds apart from the -II and IIA in both highs and lows.
I've had MG-IIB, 1.6, gunned 1.6, and 3.6.
IIB definitely has a high frequency rolloff, but otherwise remarkably good. Very inefficient though, and its imaging was better running the reverse of the marked Left and Right, i.e. with tweeters in.
1.6 seemed fairly "hot" in lower-treble and the tweeter attenuator was essential.
1.6 gunned was good in treble and great in mid bass but I thought a big defect in the crossover region. I would have preferred to keep the stock XO, or stock XO design with upgraded parts and a bit of tweeter attenuation.
3.6R was somewhat disconnected in high treble on initial listen, and completely fixed with tweeter attenuator, and overall more balanced and refined and wide-band good than all the above. I miss the the toe-tappingness of the gunned 1.6 mid bass and its looks, but otherwise 3.6 is overall superior. And the ribbon tweet is incomparable.
The MGII's upper frequency range is listed as 14khz. Unless you resort to something like an equalizer, you're probably not going to get much top-end extension from that model Maggie.
This is the frequency response of the MG-IIB.
great review; my first impression was 40wpc may not be ideal for the big Maggies (at least not running full range). Secondly I too have a set of Triangles (seen in the corner on pic; also see my recent review ) and they're worlds apart; mainly due to efficiency (91db for the Cometes). The Maggies will paint a glorious image across the rear wall provided they're positioned correctly, ample space is allowed, and of course a truckload of power is given.
Bottom line, don't give up on the Maggies, once they're up and running, they'll return hours upon hours of pure pleasure!
It may take me days but I may be able to offer some reference points later. I am going to borrow the CD by Anita O'Day and Billy May - Porter, from a friend. Bill's Bag & Big Fat Brass combo of CD's are part of my reference music.
Check your fuses and be sure the tweeters are firing. If the fuses are good, you need to check the continuity of the tweeters. Breaks in the "voice coil wiring" with speakers this old are common but can be repaired as a DIY project.
As to the bass, you want to have the speakers 4' or more from the front wall.
tweeters are working and panels are located more than 4ft from any walls.
I can hear HF from the panels, but extension is limited.
Thanks.
Are you using the 4 ohm taps from the Cary monos? You are describing a rolled off FR which is not characteristic of the II models. But is descriptive of a tube or impedance mismatch in a tube amp.
Have you tried to drive the MGII with your Mac? Did that open up the top end?
What tubes do you have in them? EL34's will often sound like you describe when driving real 4 ohm speakers - particularly in triode.
Another possible issue is toe in angle - the speaker requires particular angles to have the outputs of the two drivers in phase, if you miss it you will get more of a bowl shaped response. That said, the later IIb and IIc tend to have a bit of a bowl shaped response even when toe in is correct.
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: