Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
67.189.82.60
A thread on the GR Research AudioCircle Forum today reminded me that last year (2016) Danny Richie of GR Research came up with a new x/o for the MMG using premium parts, and getting rid of all the ferrous ones in the speaker connector/fuse holder. But more importantly, his x/o substantially improves the speakers frequency response. Sorry, I don't know how to provide a link, but the info can be found in a thread entitled "Impertinent half serious question".
Follow Ups:
Here's the thread.
I think that what Danny has done is to flatten out the response at the crossover point and bring up the highs some. This results in smoother overall response but I'm not sure that's what you want, for several reasons.
One is that with two-channel stereo, you generally don't want a flat response, you want one that declines gradually in the highs. Flat will sound too bright. The stock curve has a nice, gradual decline from the mids into the highs.
Another is that the MMG is a bit peaky in the highs as it is and I don't think you want to emphasize that.
Also, you have to be concerned with overall tonal balance, and the MMG's have limited bass. Too much treble could make them sound too bright.
If you add an inductor as he has, you'll be losing the advantages of the single pole XO but judging by his description, the tradeoff is worth it, as in my experience the MMG's do start to sound cramped at levels above 95 dB or so. And of course upgrading the XO components is likely to be a good thing. I'm not sure how much of a sonic effect the ferromagnetic components have but bypassing them certainly can't hurt.
Of course, you never really know until you hear it!
Good points Josh. I think Danny adds an inductor to the tweeter leg, raising the x/o frequency a little, and turning the filter from 1st order to 2nd, a pretty serious change. But it is the MMG's midrange response that is changed the most. His mod gets rid of the MMG's midrange hump, considerably flattening the speakers frequency response. Bringing down the speakers midrange peak may make the speaker sound brighter, as the subjective effect of reducing the midrange may be to make the tweeter sound louder, though it actually isn't. Perhaps it would be better to just get a pair of 1.6, 1.7, or ET LFT-8!
Edits: 02/08/17 02/08/17
That assumes that Danny's measurement is accurate and a proper depiction of the balance the MMG speakers have stock. I don't believe it is.
IMO, the MMG's do not have a "hump" in the midrange in stock form......at least not one that needs to be corrected. Danny's modification to the speakers is fairly simplistic, at best.
Now, if you want to experience MMG's with a "humped" midrange response, switch the crossover to the Magnestand version. You'll be listening to a LOT of midrange with that. :)
Dave.
So many variables. His room may just have lousy bass response, that can swing wildly. The 140 Hz null is cancellation from a backwave reflection, that's one cycle with the speakers out about 4' from the wall. This in-room curve shows flatter response in the tweeter:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=113653.20
. . . but he just may have more HF absorption in his room. Mic height could also make a difference per the curve here -- one of the curves looks a lot like his measurement (the original isn't loading so this goes to the search results):
https://www.google.com/search?q=mmg+frequency+response&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitkOzQ04HSAhUM74MKHdIfBy8Q_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=720#imgrc=bfN9KOva854JnM:
Challenging speakers to measure indoors. Only the MMG measurements I made outdoors would I consider representative.
Regardless, I don't believe Danny Richie has the chops to properly measure a speaker like this....let alone second-guess/redesign the crossover.
His normal shtick on these type of efforts is to "flatten" the response and utilize some expensive/audiophile components to yield vast improvements. :)
Dave.
Davey, you don't "believe" Danny Richie has the chops to properly measure a speaker like the MMG? Care to share what has lead you to this belief?
They're tricky to measure for anybody. Just look at the wide variety of results reviewers and various users have posted through the years. :)
My preferred method is somewhat unusual, but it yields more consistent results without the confusing peak/valleys. I take the speaker outside and tip it over on its side (tweeter side down) and place my microphone on the ground about six feet away. That will yield a fairly smooth result. It also works better for optimizing the crossover integration.
You need some decent weather and a quiet environment though. :)
Outdoor measurements minimize/eliminate a variety of variables that can confuse the average user attempting to make (semi)-anechoic measurements in a normal listening room.
Cheers,
Dave.
I remember seeing pics from the 50's and 60's, in High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Audio Magazines (and maybe even early Stereophiles), of speakers elevated way off the ground, on top of poles, for the taking of measurements. Danny Richie has an anechoic chamber, which is what everyone, even the Canadian National Research Council and the BBC, now use. No good?But that's an issue separate from the reason for your belief that Danny Richie lacks the chops to take accurate measurements, isn't it? That's what I was asking about. I took "lack of chops" to imply much more than just insufficient measurement technique.
Edits: 02/10/17 02/10/17 02/10/17
Maybe you should actually read what I said, vice reading between the lines and inferring something else??
It's no secret that I'm not that impressed with Danny Richie's designing capabilities or product offerings. But, I do believe he's miles better than many inhabitants of the audio industry who are selling vastly overpriced shit. Danny provides nice value kits and he's obviously not getting rich selling them. There's something to be said for that in this crazy industry.
Just my two cents. Worth what you paid for it.
Try my method of measurement on your upcoming ET/hybrid project. You might find it works rather well.
Cheers,
Dave.
Your statement, Dave: "I don't believe Danny Richie has the chops to properly measure a speaker like this" ("this" referring to the MMG). I don't think I was "reading between the lines and inferring something else"---the meaning of your statement seems quite clear, no need for inference! I was just curious as to upon what that opinion was arrived at.
I will indeed employ your measurement method when I have everything ready to go, thanks for the information and advice, it's greatly appreciated (and needed!)---Eric.
I am glad to see that you will measure at SPL. With some care, it may help you chisel things into a great sounding system. And at a reasonable, even bargain costs. One piece of advice, whichever method you choose to measure your speakers with, keep it.
Don't go on changing methods if you want meaningful data across time. Note mic position, signal levels, noise, etc. Make changes "one at a time", mindful that planars react to everything around them. (For example, don't move the speakers and a sofa at the same time.)
It is the comparative measured changes across time that will tell you the most from measurements. Your own ears MUST lead, measuring will confirm the trends, as you make changes. REW and a calibrated mic (even cheap <$20 ones) can do the trick. Just stick to the discipline of measuring under the same method. I chose "listening position aimed at speakers" but as long as you control the noise environment, others will work.
I read some of what you linked to. The guy is on to something on at least two counts, not that anyone would care to know. Importantly, it seems that in spite of his measuring with a less-than-ideal method, he is sticking with it while using his ears well. Having walked along similar paths, in reading the flavor of what he says, I can correlate some of it.
That said, I'll do as always, what the hell! If you can go for line-level multiamping, most Maggies can deliver glory for peanuts.
Good points Josh. I think Danny adds an inductor to the tweeter leg, raising the x/o frequency a little, and turning the filter from 1st order to 2nd, a pretty serious change. But it is the MMG's midrange response that is changed the most. His mod gets rid of the MMG's midrange hump, considerably flattening the speakers frequency response. Bringing down the speakers midrange peak may make the speaker sound brighter, as the subjective effect of reducing the midrange may be to make the tweeter sound louder, though it actually isn't. Perhaps it would be better to just get a pair of 1.6's!
Does this work;
I think you want to keep the woofer sections physically separate from the MMGs in order to avoid intermodulation of the mid/treble on the MMG when it is shaken by the powerful deep bass.
Hiya Ace! Yup, I gotta learn how to do that. If it's not asking too much, could you pm me and tell me how to do it? Thanks---Eric.
On the MMG question, I too suggest looking for a used pair 1.6's. They might be available for a grand---used 1.7's are going for no less than $1500, the same for the excellent Eminent Technology LFT-8. All three are far better than the MMG.
This is how you would put in a link for Google. Note the part highlighted in yellow in the picture.
Great, thanks so much.
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: