Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share you ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

Low level listening with big Magnepans

68.255.0.112
Posted on November 3, 2009 at 10:24:46
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 Over the summer I have been working on extensive modifications of my MGIIbs. This included new wood frames, new binding posts, and biamping using a PLLXO with the SMGa symmetric slopes. With the subs crossing over at 90 Hz, I have a total of 500 wpc driving the speakers.

At a healthy volume these speaker are no doubt a revelation to me, bring me closer to the performances than anything I've experienced in my 35 years of audiophia.

But....

I find it necessary to crank these up to a fairly loud level for them to sound their best, and in my living room the listening area is only 8 ft from the speaker. The wife has pronounced that while the Magnepans do sound good at certain level, it is TOO LOUD! for everday listening...and
I can't really disagree. I suppose this is one reason that a really large room is helpful; you can crank them and be a bit further back.

So I have had to replace them and am using other (dynamic) speakers that do better at low level...but you know it's just not the same.

Would smaller Magnepans be better at low level listening levels than the larger ones? I'm thinking MMG or SMGas.

I have done a lot of work to get the MGIIs to where they are and hate to think I have to start all over again, but it may come to that....

BTW my listening room is 16' x 13' with a sloping ceiling.
Maybe time to buy a bigger house? I'm think smaller speakers would be easier.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 7, 2009 at 17:51:00
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 Maybe you should try headphones. It's a fact that you can get good low level sound out of Magneplanars, but it is hard. But we do have to make compromises. There are many good headphone solutions that approximate Maggie sound. Don't get wrapped around the axle of thinking that one solution is the only fix.

Consider your options. It's only natural that you may not have considered the dark side of the force, but Sennheisers sound very good with an appropriate amp, not unlike Maggies.

That would be a consideration.
RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 7, 2009 at 21:16:59
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 I do have a couple of sets of Sennheiser headphones, but the problem is not that my wife doesn't want to listen to music, she just doesn't like to listen to it at the levels that I think the Maggies do best (starting somewhere in the low 80db at 1 meter range)

I need to get out the SPL meter and quantify what I mean by low level.

It seems to me my MGIIs get noticably veiled below a certain point, more so than cone/dome speakers I've been using, but once the SPLs get up there the Magnepans are fantastic. As others have stated other/newer models may do better at this, but I don't see that there is a consunsus on that point either.

For sure these are among the least efficient Magnepans...

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 8, 2009 at 14:29:28
monk1
 I much enjoyed my MG-2 (purchased new) in the 70's and only switching to Rogers LS3/5A several years later, did I regret selling the MG-2. My main complaint about the MG-2 at the time was it lacked the focus of a mini monitor. The Rogers couldn't match the Maggie in dynamics or ability to play loud, and was only marginally better at low levels than the MG-2. I seldom received complaints from my upstairs neighbor about the Maggies. But when I replaced them with the LS3/5A, I had many complaints, perhaps due to differences in their radiation patterns.

If your MG-2 is suffering from significant loss of resolution at low levels, it may be the tweeter is going, especially if it's still the original tweeter and has not been refurbished in the past 10 years. Corrosion may have increased resistance and reduced output. Just a thought.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 7, 2009 at 22:17:49
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 Well, 80db would be high for me. Perhaps it's too high for your wife.

If it's a relationship issue I'd say go to the cans.

A lot of us males aren't willing to accept the facts. If we were in wars or other high noise jobs or are just generally older our hearing is shot. That is a fact. It would be nice if it wasn't that we actually can afford this audio hobby now.

You're screwed, my man. Just like me. So live with it.

I'm sure the kids don't think about this, I didn't.

Be nice to your wife.
RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 8, 2009 at 05:16:27
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 Oh I am willing to admit that my hearing is not what it was...at 52 I can't hear much above 10K, and my wife can.

We used to agree on what sounded good (she had a respectable system of her own before we married, separate pre-amp/amp, Systemdek table, etc) but these days not as much. I have considered it is because my hearing is changing faster.

Before this turns into some relationship counseling thread I'll just say thanks to everybody. I've received a lot of points to ponder and the battle may not be lost just yet. The Magnepans are put away for the winter (they need to be fairly close the the fireplace/firewood and I don't want to risk damaging them)

In the Spring I will revisit this issue.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:47:52
monk1
 I mentioned in another pervious post that my Quads and Apogees sounded very clear at "whisper" levels. What I didn't mention was I had to be 12 inches from the speaker to appreciate it, lol.

I just came back after spending an hour with the Tympani 1D, this time with a Radio Shack SPL meter. I started at about 80 dB-SPL, then incrementally turning down the volume until I reached the point where resolution would begin to fade at my seating position 17' away. When I came to 50 dB-SPL, there's still no sign of any fade. The sound is still crystal clear at 50 dB-SPL. Problem is, I've reached the lower limit of my SPL meter's range so I can say with some certainty that resolution above 50 db-SPL is still fine. Now 50 dB-SPL isn't anywhere near whisper levels. Room conversation is generally around 60 dB-SPL. And if I were to whisper at you, you would have to come within 10" from me to hear what I'd be saying. I listen to a lot of live FM broadcasts usually in the evenings. No real issues here.

other planar speakers, posted on November 6, 2009 at 09:46:02
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Apogees sound better at all levels but especially at low levels

Acoustats are resolving at lower levels and do well at higher ones

Other electrostats (like the innersound and sounlabs) do well at low levels too.

RE: other planar speakers, posted on November 6, 2009 at 21:35:18
Alan G.
 I might concede that those models might be easier to listen to at lower levels. I did hear some Soundlab Dynstats at low levels and they did have more detail than my Maggies. However my Maggies are good enough at those low levels that I can easily live with them. Once the volume goes up my Maggies creamed them. As a matter of fact I have found that the Maggies beat out all the speakers you mention when the volume reaches "around the house talking" level in that they do more right than the other speakers in more categories. The Apogees have that overly fat bass and that inability to give holographic real world imaging. They can give spectacular but not necessarily a real world effect [In recording for my church I have come to really respect the 3.6 for all they do so right]. Most of the electrostatics can't play real world soul with all the required power and dynamics. I did enjoy the Acoustat 1+1 playing Tina Turner's Private Dancer album. The newer Acoustats gave nice instrument colors but don't relly give a realistic holographic stage.

All I ask for with the low level resolution thing is that it sounds very good. Even Bose speaker can sound good at real low levels but can't compete when any amount of volume comes into play. The thing with Maggies the better the setup including room the better the low level resolution and then also the better the higher level resolution.

RE: other planar speakers, posted on November 7, 2009 at 16:22:51
muralman1
Audiophile

Posts: 617
Location: No. California
Joined: August 7, 2003
 You would have to hear my Scintillas, before coming to that conclusion.

Like you said, "The thing with Maggies the better the setup including room the better the low level resolution and then also the better higher resolution."

It goes the same with all speakers, especially the dipoles.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:05:40
Rod H.
Audiophile

Posts: 1390
Location: Oregon
Joined: May 18, 2005
 I've had a "different" experience with my modded MMGs. In the past I always felt the need to crank speakers up louder and louder to get what I was after. Since getting MMGs and modding them, I find that I'm very satisfied to listen at low to moderate volumes, and very seldom have the urge to keep inching up the volume.

Rod

the one thing missing from this discussion, posted on November 6, 2009 at 05:20:06
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 What constitutes low to medium volumes? I think I agree with your statement - assuming our ideas about low to medium volume is in agreement. I listened to some music last night at an average A-weighted volume around 65dB (ranged from around 50 to 80dB) as measured by a ratshack meter. It was very involving - I wouldn't remotely label the sound as 'veiled'. Still, listening to the same music at an average A-weighted level of 80dB is even more satisfying (that's pretty much where the urge to turn up the wick subsides).


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
Agree RatShack metering is the Bees Knees when talking about LOUD, posted on November 12, 2009 at 10:07:21
Elizabeth
Audiophile

Posts: 2097
Location: Great Lakes Region
Joined: December 20, 2000
 I used a RS meter at the dealer when auditioning.. peaking @ 80db A wieghted at the seating position was the best. The dealer even asked me what level I was using as he realized it sounded so fine.

RE: Agree RatShack metering is the Bees Knees when talking about LOUD, posted on November 12, 2009 at 11:18:26
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 OP here...yeah I use a Radio Shack SPL meter.

The lower level I'm talking about would be mid-upper 50 db at the listening position according to my meter. Conversation level.

My experience has been they sound fantastic at around upper 70-lower 80 db range at the listening position.

RE: Agree RatShack metering is the Bees Knees when talking about LOUD, posted on November 12, 2009 at 12:32:40
monk1
 Another point that hasn't been mentioned so far is the amplifier's role at very low SPL-levels. Even at 50 dB-SPL, the amp would be operating at fractional-watt levels. This is not a normal concern for Maggie owners, but for many horn owners, this issue is very real because the high sensitivity horns reveal amplifier flaws at extreme low levels. I believe they call it "The first Watt".

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:23:20
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 well, I'm guessing it is something to do with the MMGs vs MGIIb (which are larger, older and do not have the QR tweeter) because I've already done all the mods I can to my MGIIb's.

I'm wondering if Magnepan has changed the magnet structure/strength over the years. I *think* the mylar and wires are pretty much the same.

I'll keep an eye out for some MMGs locally.

the magnet formula has evolved, posted on November 6, 2009 at 05:24:37
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 According to the 1980 patent, Plastiform (rubber bonded barium ferrite), ceramic magnet with barium ferrite, and samarium cobalt in a polymer binding were used in different arrangements to increase the net flux density. This was a departure from the earlier pole piece (pure Plastiform) design and, I'm sure, an improvement.

I haven't read all of the patent data, but it seems likely that progress in this regard has continued. Flux density was certainly on Jim's radar screen.


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 5, 2009 at 17:17:16
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
"I'm wondering if Magnepan has changed the magnet structure/strength over the years. I *think* the mylar and wires are pretty much the same."

I don't know anything specific about Magnepan's decision but it is certainly true that neodymium permanent magnets have become standard industrial products during that time. These have substantially higher field strength than previous magnets, and therefore with the same amount of current, you get a larger mechanical force.

I now have MG1.6's and compared to my old MGIIb's, they are substantially more efficient, and have clearly more high-frequency extension. Maybe that makes them sound 'clearer' at lower SPL's?

But also remember the classic Fletcher-Munson curves: humans have varying sensitivity to sounds vs frequency depending on the SPL. This is the origin of the loudness "button", which really should be a knob, and should be calibrated to overall system sensitivity.

So it is natural that the tonal balance changes with varying volume. It's possible that a fully linear and flat responding speaker at higher volumes will sound not as nice at lower volumes simply because it reproduces exactly the same thing, but humans don't hear that way.

Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:03:44
CometCKO
Audiophile

Posts: 395
Joined: August 9, 2002
 I found low-level listening improved quite a bit on my 1.6's when I went to active bi-amping. But still, they aren't great at late night levels (don't wake the baby).

My friend has a pair of Innersound Eros speakers that are really quite nice at low levels. I've listened to a lot of my favorite music on his system, and the clarity and presence is quite nice, at least within the narrow sweet spot. And of course, Quads, but I have the opposite problem with them, which is they don't deliver the big orchestra sound that I love from my Maggies.

Interesting tho, to hear folks say the newer Maggies are better at low-level response. I wonder what the physics of that are?

RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 5, 2009 at 10:30:58
Peter Gunn
Manufacturer

Posts: 2932
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: April 16, 2001
 You need wood.

In stock form maggies are not great at low volume levels because of the same problem ruining them at loud ones. Their mdf frames force so much vibration back onto the driver that at "light" levels it distorts everything into a quiet smear.

If you also redid your XO to my specs you'd raise your output to 92 dbl as well.

There's no need to suffer, or do without. If you did both of those things the guy with the Innersounds woulld be at your house instead.

:^ )


It's all about the music...
RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 6, 2009 at 07:07:01
Davey
Audiophile

Posts: 1493
Joined: December 26, 2000
 Wood frames are a valid, optional improvement, but you can't keep touting this nonsensical efficiency spec.

CometCKO has a line-level crossover with a direct connection between power amplifiers and transducers. A direct connection between amplifier and transducer is the most efficient connection possible. Period. Any passive crossover (including series) simply can not match that level of coupling.

The claimed 92 dbl sensitivity is completely bogus and not physically possible if the actual transducer is unchanged. A crossover design can not magically double the baseline efficiency of a speaker system.

Equalizing part of the mid-range response with a boosted, non-flat frequency response to make the speaker seem "louder" is not the same thing as an overall system increase in efficiency.

Stick to woodworking, PLEASE.

Dave.

RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 8, 2009 at 15:43:17
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
Changes in crossover certainly can change efficiency with respect to a given *voltage* reference.

And also, of course, passive crossovers have resistors with sometimes substantial power dissipation, as well as large inductors with ohmic resistance as well as perhaps dissipation in the switching of a ferromagnetic core.

After you get past the crossover, energy efficiency (acoustic output as a function of electrical current in) can increase most obviously from a higher field strength due to geometry or materials, or, mechano-acoustic resonances/coupling.

RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 8, 2009 at 15:47:15
Davey
Audiophile

Posts: 1493
Joined: December 26, 2000
 Crossovers can certainly 'reduce' the efficiency of a system design. (I would have thought that was obvious and wouldn't even need stating.)

PG's claim is an efficiency increase. Only magic could account for that. :)

Cheers,

Dave.

watch thy step on that slippery slope, posted on November 8, 2009 at 19:21:17
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 Although PG's claim cannot be true in the sense you framed it, it can be true in the sense that his XO induces less loss than stock (still, I don't believe the quoted number). Obviously, the greatest efficiency would be no crossover at all (at the speaker level that is). It is patently impossible for any passive components between one's amp(s) and one's transducers to equal or better the power coupling of wire.


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: watch thy step on that slippery slope, posted on November 8, 2009 at 21:01:02
Davey
Audiophile

Posts: 1493
Joined: December 26, 2000
 No, not a slippery slope at all.

It's easy to calculate the losses in the networks. Compare DCR's and ESR's and it will yield a relative number. The DCR of the stock inductor in the MMG's is 0.6 ohms and the inductor recommended by PG is 0.3 ohms. That's about 0.5db difference after the arithmetic. That's in the mud compared to PG's claims. :)

But anyways, in the posting higher up in this thread he claimed "If you also redid your XO to my specs you'd raise your output to 92 dbl as well." This was in reply to CometCKO, who is already utilizing an active crossover at line level with nothing between amplifier and transducers but wire.

Cheers,

Dave.
that's more like it ;-), posted on November 9, 2009 at 05:06:06
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 By slippery slope, I was referring to your rather general statement about PG's XO and efficiency. Your arithmetical quantification in that last post puts everything into proper perspective. As has been said, and is an irrefutable fact, an absence of a speaker level XO allows the transducer(s) to operate at their native efficiency - no passive XO components can match wire. Even then, we aren’t talking about significant increases (over simple, 1st order, 2-way, speaker level passives).


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 6, 2009 at 10:06:51
Peter Gunn
Manufacturer

Posts: 2932
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: April 16, 2001
 I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it's been validated by computer, and everyone who hears it reports it as well. Must be mass hysteria at work.

If you go to the maggie list page you can see the dbl output (supplied by magnepan) for any given model often change when no other change was made to that series other than a new XO design. The II series is most emblematic of this as they constantly played with the XO of that model and the dbl output from model to model is all over the map.

But thanks for dropping in with your "holier than thou, shut your mouth" comments. There's no kind of censorship like the sanctimonious kind...

...and no, I'm not discussing it further with you...


It's all about the music...
RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 7, 2009 at 16:49:06
monk1
 The differences in sensitivity with the MG-2 series can be explained by their nominal impedance which may be 4, 5 or 6 Ohms depending on the model. When adjusted for their nominal impedance, the sensitivity is approximately 83 dB/ 1Watt 500 Hz @ 1m for all MG-2 series give or take 0.5 dB.

Also, comparing two Maggies of similar dimensions but different vintage, the original MG-2 produced in 1973 has a similar sensitivity compared to the MG-1.6QR built 25 years later in 1998. Both were specified at 83 dB/1W @ 1m when adjusted for impedance and power.

not to pile on, but this confuses me, posted on November 7, 2009 at 06:37:04
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 I can understand a perceived increase in overall output because the busiest part (when reproducing actual music) of the frequency range does get a boost (because the summed response is electrically flat - no dip as with stock). In fact, around the crossover region, that increase is quantifiable via measurements, but that doesn't translate to an overall increase.

In fact, there is a resistor in the tweeter leg. A series resistor always attenuates - that's its bloody function. Reducing the output of the tweeter will raise the perceived level of the other segment of the panel's response. If this XO actually raised the output of the bass/mid by such a significant factor (while reducing the output of the tweeter - remember, that's a given, unless the Duelund truly is magical), how could the electrical response be anywhere near flat?

As far what everyone hears is concerned, this is a claim I never made. What I heard was 'in your face' midrange that I initially found objectionable. My brain adjusted and my opinion flipped - thought it sounded awesome (with most musical material - especially well recorded vocals), but not louder (outside of the aforementioned midrange).

---

You can like me; you can hate me - I only call them as I see them. If it seems that I'm picking on you, then I apologize - not my intention at all. I do like you, but I don't agree with everything you state. Your contributions to this forum are immense and invaluable.

It's difficult to estimate how many individuals owe their renewed enjoyment of their formerly dilapidated (or, delaminated) Maggies to your advice. Your hardwood frames have been an inspiration for many DIYers and you freely share the details of the products that are your current source of income - so that the DIY community may have them without giving you one red cent. This is at once incredibly generous and highly unusual.

I consider you a treasure in this community, but you are human and we are all imperfect. In the post to which this is a reply, you made an assumption that may be inaccurate. Are you certain that nothing but the XO changes from one iteration of a model to the next? From reading some of the patent information, it seems that the formula of the magnet structure has evolved. Could it be that the crossover changes are corrections to the behavioral changes which result from modifications to the magnet structure? I know I'm putting myself out on a limb here, but I think the question is reasonable. An improvement in flux density will net an increase in output efficiency, and that might necessitate a retuning of the crossover. It's only a theory, but I'm suspicious of sweeping declarations based on what may be woefully incomplete knowledge. Just because something looks the same doesn't mean its composition isn't vastly different. I think we often underestimate the amount of engineering ocurring in White Bear Lake, Minnesota.




"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
"you are human and we are all imperfect" - speak for yourself, Waz!! :-)) nt, posted on November 7, 2009 at 13:35:04
andyr
Audiophile

Posts: 6555
Location: Melbourne
Joined: September 2, 2000
 .


I waz ;-), posted on November 8, 2009 at 06:27:58
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 I think it's imperative to keep one's imperfections in sight - I'm as flawed as they come (and I'm painfully aware of it).


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
Well, the SMGa is said to be more efficient than the 1.6., posted on November 7, 2009 at 12:36:26
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 And they're 10 years older in design. Perhaps the magnetic composition has changed to give greater flux density, perhaps not. The 1.6s move more air, yes, over a greater range. But it would be interesting to compare apples to apples, say a SMGa vs a MG 12 comparison as far as efficiency--except that you can't because of the crossovers and the QR mid-tweeter on the 12.

All of these are IMHO broadly equivalent for non true ribbon Magneplanars, but you can clearly see that efficiency is related to panel size and perhaps crossover design, as well as driver configuration.

All of these represent design variations, not breakthroughs. Magnepan is a VERY conservative company. As you know.

To speculate that that they would attempt a radical departure in magnet composition in order to increase flux density is counter intuitive to me, given their track record.

I submit as evidence that the binding posts on my relatively new 1.6s are exactly the same hardware as on my SMGs. Twenty years apart and no change. That speaks volumes to me.

That says that they don't change what works, which is not necessarily a bad thing :-).

But it doesn't support a claim of engineering innovation. The original concept was the innovation, everything since that has been variations on a theme.

That it works as well as it does is to Jim Winey's credit. That PG and others can make it work better is a tribute to them. It is what it is.
RE: Well, the SMGa is said to be more efficient than the 1.6., posted on November 8, 2009 at 15:47:04
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 49
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
"To speculate that that they would attempt a radical departure in magnet composition in order to increase flux density is counter intuitive to me, given their track record."

"I submit as evidence that the binding posts on my relatively new 1.6s are exactly the same hardware as on my SMGs. Twenty years apart and no change. That speaks volumes to me."

Changing magnet composition can directly improve empirically measurable performance. A higher magnetic field with everything else being the same should be pretty much a win with no downside, greater efficiency and greater linearity at a given output.

To me the fact that they didn't change the binding posts is because they don't believe in tweaks that have no reliably measurable improvement in engineering or substantial marketing value.


Well..., posted on November 8, 2009 at 15:59:00
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 It would have substantial marketing value if they could advertise that they use a respected name brand of post. Oh wait, they don't advertise.

Much.

As far as the magnets, they may have changed them prior to 1986.

The speaker efficiencies haven't changed, Doctor.
RE: Well, the SMGa is said to be more efficient than the 1.6., posted on November 8, 2009 at 06:51:14
Davey
Audiophile

Posts: 1493
Joined: December 26, 2000
 Magnet changes, panel size, motor configuration, etc, etc, can all have an effect on system efficiency. Crossovers can not.

As the designs have evolved crossover changes may be required to tailor/flatten the frequency response, balance the tweeter and woofer, etc, etc, but they can't alter the basic efficiency of the design. That's locked in when the transducer unit leaves its fabrication area and continues on to be assembled into the rest of the system.

I certainly wouldn't make any conclusions on the engineering prowess in White Bear Lake based on binding posts. :)

Cheers,

Dave.

RE: Well, the SMGa is said to be more efficient than the 1.6., posted on November 8, 2009 at 13:45:43
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 Maybe not, but it's indicative. I'm not complaining, I'm just whining. As Waz points out, Magnepan is an all American success story, and I appreciate that. I can accept the flaws because I feel the total execution is world class. They wouldn't be my speakers of choice otherwise.

But if I can see room for improvement so can anyone. The panel delamination is just unacceptable. As are the binding posts and the crappy crossover components.

You can certainly argue that they are built to a price point, and I recognize that. I think that it might sink Magnepan to write off those 3000 drums of 3M Super 77 and those 400 cases of binding posts.

So I'm just whining. We've gotten used to the flaws. Cottage industries have grown up to take care of the flaws. Is this part of Magnepan's strategy to rule the world? Doubtful.

What motivation is there to make the product better? None, as long as they can sell all that they can make.
lll and 3M, posted on November 8, 2009 at 14:41:31
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 I suspect Magnepan is stuck (if you'll pardon the pun) with 3M adhesives as part of a deal Jim struck with his former employer - from the magnets to the Mylar to the adhesives (and who knows what else?), Magnepan is built on 3M technology. My guess is that Magnepan is contractually obligated to utilize those 3M products. I even wonder if Magnepan's logo pays homage to 3M.

Those crappy crossover components aren't really any worse than the components used by the majority of Magnepan's competitors. We are the few, the crazy, the insanely zealous and relentlessly tinkering nutcases - most of Magnepan's customers never give what's beneath the socks (or the connector plates) the slightest thought.

Your conclusion is dead-on, but I still think Magnepan has made some invisible changes which improve their products. Furthermore, you wouldn't have much trouble finding an engineer who would laugh at the concept of replacing those crossover components with 'better' ones.


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: lll and 3M, posted on November 8, 2009 at 15:48:16
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 OK, I grant you that shizz is relative. And I don't have a problem with using a 3M product, although that agreement may have been advantageous, at the time.

And no, they don't have to know what's behind the curtain.

The problem is that I know, and you know, that all is not happy in Maggieland.

Very small improvements could enhance the reliability of the product.

Stabilize the adhesive. They know that.

Improve the binding posts. Cardas would love to have that order.

Maybe you're right about the crossovers, nobody sees those.

I think Magnepan does a big repair business, just based on the posts here, which as you say are not representative of this hypothetical average Magnepan customer.

I know it's not good business sense to build a product that doesn't fail. But Bryston and McIntosh do this (regardless of your opinion on how they sound) and it seems to work for them.

I am not here to trash Magnepan. I think they generally do a very good job. My SMGs were good to go for 20 years, I serviced them when they needed it and I expect another 20 years out of them.

That's the good part. I'm here to say that they could do a little better, thats all.
the sands of time, posted on November 8, 2009 at 19:19:28
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 Even Bryston and McIntosh products need repairs after a quarter century - electrolytic caps simply don't last forever. People who love their tube products resign themselves to the reality that tubes just don't last like transistors. I've replaced the surrounds on the woofers of my AR91s as well as replacing the capacitors in their crossovers. I'm restoring a pair of (nearly 40 year old) JBL C50s. The sands of time erode all things.

Yes, delamination is a bitch, but it isn’t unprecedented in the world of hifi. I’m okay with the flaws, especially because eliminating all of them would push these speakers beyond what I’m willing to pay. Warts and all, they are friggin’ amazing speakers.


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: the sands of time, posted on November 8, 2009 at 19:49:05
esande
Audiophile

Posts: 169
Location: Washington, DC
Joined: December 27, 2008
 I don't disagree. They're fantastically good for what they cost. Yeah, yeah, if Jesus, Muhammed, and Buffy the vampire slayer agree on this we have no problem.

That we even discuss the "it sounds great" part isn't exactly productive.

Of course they sound great.

They wouldn't even be here if they didn't make the cut.

The issue is how they can be made better.

:-)

let's talk cars, posted on November 8, 2009 at 20:53:16
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 I have a Honda S2000. They come pretty much as they come - not much to check as far as options are concerned. The stock version of the car is amazing - and it represented (alas, the production run has ended) an amazingly good deal (sound familiar?). It could be better. The nose is a bit long so the front of the engine can be located behind the front axle - for proper weight distribution. Most of that space is consumed by the air intake - space that just begs to be filled with something more effective. Mine has a supercharger with an intercooler up front - makes it a rip-roaring blast to drive (read: better). The list of enhancements doesn't end there, and the result is a giant killer (sound familiar?).

The moral is that manufacturers are faced with choices - Honda could build a car that could compete with a Ferrari, but they built something within reach of the working class instead. Nutcases that are serious enough to take a great car to the next level can do so. Jim Winey is a 'salt of the earth' type of fellow (raised on a farm) and I bet it's important to him that the working class can enjoy his product. Like an S2000, a stock MMG is great - like a well-modded S2000, a well-modded MMG is superb.



"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: let's talk cars, posted on November 8, 2009 at 23:26:30
Leon
 Waz,
Honda DID make a car 'to compete with Ferrari'. They called it the NSX.
I left my S-2000 stock. It had the 2l engine which went to 9k. It was my daily driver for
over 50,000 miles. Kind of sorry to see it go, but since I can afford one car only, these days it has to be at least 4psngr and able to tote my Kayak.
I once suggested to the Miata boys that instead of going nuts with engine modifications that they just drop in an S-2000 engine! My monitor exploded!

well, yes, but..., posted on November 9, 2009 at 05:04:01
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 The NSX was a bit too pricey for me and I was limiting my Ferrari reference to how the S2000 compared to it. Heck, Honda builds F1 race cars too. It's sad that the NSX was dropped - it was the everyman's Ferrari. It's sad that the S2K was dropped too - it was sort of a Miata on serious steroids.

I'm sorry that you have to give up your S2K - I know you'll miss it. I've never owned a more tossable car - so easy to control. Miatas aren't bad, but they just don't have the same character - they do handle well (though not as well), but they could do with a bit more thrust. A stock S2K is exhilarating; a supercharged S2k is insane!

I was just trying to make a point with an analogy - many excellent things could be better. An aftermarket exists for just that reason - whether we're talking cars or Maggies.


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
multiple patents, posted on November 8, 2009 at 06:24:52
wazoo
Audiophile

Posts: 1889
Location: Middle GA
Joined: December 6, 2006
 Magnepan has been awarded three patents which specifically mention refinements to their magnet design (unless I'm misreading them), with increased flux density being the noted improvement. This suggests, at least to me, that Jim continued to develop his product. You could counter with the observation that those were awarded in 1980 and 1984, with no subsequent mention in later patents. Perhaps that is evidence of no further development; perhaps it's merely evidence that Jim no longer saw the necessity of applying for patents.

Another 1984 patent * referred to modifications of the Mylar binding method. This change is completely hidden inside the frame. The main thrust of my point is that it's dangerous to assume that something which looks unchanged really is unchanged. You are correct; Magnepan is a very conservative company - something which has contributed to their survival in this industry (and kept their manufacturing on these shores). I don't, however, think it's safe to assume that Jim hasn't continued to refine his invention just because the binding posts haven't changed.

----

* One of the improvements noted in this patent was better power handling and substantially increased output of bass and midrange - more excursion. Such a change could lead to a retuned crossover. The patent listed numerous possible materials - indicative of an experimental mind at work.

Jim Winey is my hero!


"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ
RE: multiple patents, posted on November 8, 2009 at 12:19:56
monk1
 In the mid 80's. Magnepan was also involved in a serious patent dispute with Apogee Acoustics. I believe the dispute was over the design of the woofer. Is it possible Magnepan would have been driven to register every design variant possible to ensure their own long term survival? Is it also possible some of those design variants were never implemented for reasons other than performance?

It's obvious Magnepan has experimented with many different design variations over the years. Some were commercially successful. Some were not. And it may not have anything to do with sound quality either. Form factor is important too. The tall single panel designs have always outsold their multiple panel designs. At the end of the day, for a company to survive, it must produce what's in demand. Not only that, it must compete on price point keeping cost to a minimum to ensure reasonable profits. This is not to say Magnepan products haven't seen refinement over the years. We must be mindful that Magnepan is still a commercial operation. The fact they are still around is indicative of their customer loyalty and their ability to find new customers. I'm a repeat customer myself because I know first hand they're a great company that takes care of their customers.

RE: Loss of "reality" when the volume is turned down, posted on November 6, 2009 at 14:31:37
Davey
Audiophile

Posts: 1493
Joined: December 26, 2000
 PG,

Some things are true, whether we believe them or not. I'm afraid your computer is in error....you're misinterpreting the results....your test setup is incorrect.....or some combination of those.

Passive components between the amplifier and transducers can (at best) pass the signal through with no attenuation.
So, the explanation for what you're hearing (which was in my previous posting....please read it) is that you've changed the crossover alignment to "blend" the drivers together much more than a stock crossover. That yields a boosted response relative to the stock alignment but ONLY in the crossover region, not for the full bandwidth of the system. The stock crossover networks yield a fairly flat response over the speakers full bandwidth, but the crossover you recommend does not exhibit a flat acoustic response. That is equalization, not a sensitivity increase.

Regarding your quoted number of 92db: Let's take Magnepan's quoted MMG sensitivity as an example. It's 86db for a 2 watt input at 500hz. Since you don't specify, I'm assuming you believe your 92db spl output will result from the same test conditions? That tells me that you're claiming a 6db increase in sensitivity?
Theoretically, that's possible, but only if you coupled together two, identical, full-range transducers, wired them in parallel and drove them full range. Clearly, the MMG's don't satisfy any of those so, by definition, a 6db increase is simply not possible. The actual measurements for the crossover you recommend show a peak relative to the stock alignment of about 3db centered at the crossover frequency, but no change in output level outside of the crossover region. This would be expected based on the simulations and I've confirmed it myself with an actual measurement using the series network you recommend.

Now, if your 92db claim is based on an alternative/incorrect reference then maybe it's possible. :)

The real sensitivity number for stock MMG's (based on my own measurements) is approximately 82.5db at 1 meter with 1 watt input averaged over the full frequency range in free-field conditions. This is on par with Magnepan's quoted specifications.

The baseline efficiency of each of the Magnepan models is "built-in" to the transducer design. You can't alter the crossover network to increase that efficiency by 6db (or even 1db.) It just doesn't work that way.

Dave.

I agree with you 92db is completely bogus, posted on November 12, 2009 at 06:35:10
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Not to mention a speaker doesn't necessarily have to have poor low level resolution and life because of a low electrical sensitivity.

If the mechanical losses are low then the driver will continue to move, and therefore produce sound, at lower and lower electrical inputs. The better it can do this the better it will perform played at low volumes and conversely the better it will preserve important low level information at normal levels like hall ambience.

Funny enough, Apogee used to always spec their speakers in the 85-87db range but nearfield measurements always put them a few db lower. However, due to their line source nature they did have better "throw" into a room, meaning that the drop off of SPL with distance was less than a typical point source. So in essence they had an "effective" sensitivity of about what Apogee rated them.

All speaker sound better when louder, but..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 10:31:03
gymwear5@hotmail.com
Manufacturer

Posts: 1218
Joined: April 10, 2002
 a good speaker, when turned down should move the performance "away from you" - and a planar speaker - as well as many omni loudspeakers - do a pretty good job of the this. If the speaker changes it sound with level, I have a set of mini-monitors that do this, then the performance appears to either collapse into the box at the levels get lower - of if it images well at lower levels - the image will overly bloom as the level rises.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 4, 2009 at 08:05:58
JimL
Audiophile

Posts: 3349
Location: New Mexico
Joined: November 24, 2002
 Haven't heard Maggies in years but compments about them sounding veiled at low listening levels seems to be fairly common regardless of the model. The best sounding planars at low listening levels in my limited experience are original Quads but then I'm biased because they've been my speakers for the past 25 years. :-) Only you can know if you can live with their limitations compared to the Maggies, and of course if you went that way you'd probably need to get different amplifiers.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 5, 2009 at 17:33:19
longtimequadowner
Audiophile

Posts: 802
Location: Vancouver BC
Joined: April 25, 2003
 Yeah, twenty some years and counting for me too. My system simply never changes. I doubt anything can touch the original Quad at low levels and especially not at really really really low levels (levels quiet enough for my 1956 wood frame no insulation condo). Can fill my 23x13 room at volumes about as loud as my refrigerator hums even while they're 13' away from me. Guess that's part of the reason why it's 20 years and counting, and why I'll be getting a new refrigerator. Extra bonus? 15 watts will do. Tried to switch so SMGA's once and immediately sold them for just that reason.


Religion is the world's oldest profession
What you refer to, posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:17:50
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 The best sounding planars at low listening levels in my limited experience are original Quads...

is true with most any full range electrostat. Which is why I ultimately chose Sound Lab over MG-20.1s.

rw

RE: What you refer to, posted on November 4, 2009 at 15:28:13
JimL
Audiophile

Posts: 3349
Location: New Mexico
Joined: November 24, 2002
 Probably true, but I've only heard other electrostatics in demos. Note that I was careful to specify "my limited experienc."

RE: What you refer to, posted on November 4, 2009 at 14:46:27
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 3116
Joined: March 26, 2001
 Agreed. ALL well designed electrostats excell at low-level resolution. Just one of their many strengths.

I have many Quads, ESL, 63, 989, Stax F-81 and Audiostatic ES-100. They are all equally blessed in terms of low-level resolution.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 3, 2009 at 20:52:41
Marc Bratton
Audiophile

Posts: 4578
Joined: June 15, 2000
 I think ALL Maggies are like this, in that you have to kick 'em to get 'em to light up. I noticed that I can go down in volume several clicks with my 12'S and still get the desired effect, compared to my MMG's. And yes, crossover component upgrades, Mye Stand, tweeter fuse bypass all helped. But I think if you want REALLY low level resolution, you're better off with a pair of Quad 57's.

Smaller Maggies..., posted on November 3, 2009 at 18:15:28
sfox48
Audiophile

Posts: 108
Location: Maryland
Joined: October 23, 2003
 I wish you luck! I have some of PG's magical MMG's that are out of harms way, in the lower regions of our house. I was pushing them with a very nice DIY MosFet amp for the last couple of years. Now I have this ancient monster BGW 500D hooked up & I don't think I can go back! Whole house stereo! Oh Yeah!!

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 3, 2009 at 16:59:42
play-mate
Audiophile

Posts: 391
Joined: November 21, 2008
 hey kirk57,

-of course it is important to keep your wife happy !

planars are not as dynamic sounding as conventional, eh...."dynamic" speakers, and they seem to be a little "tame" in direct comparison.

but as we all know, planars excels in so many other parameters.
-one of these are their low intermodulation distortion, which tends us to crank up the volume a bit louder than wives can tolerate.
and that´s actually a sign of a very high fidelity system !

I don´t think the situation would be better with smaller maggies.
RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 3, 2009 at 12:19:14
drkielbasa
Audiophile

Posts: 121
Location: Mpls
Joined: February 11, 2005
 I find that smaller Maggies are no more resolving at lower levels than large ones, however, the modern ones, beginning with the SMGc are more resolving at low levels than older ones.

I think you could be very happy with a set of MMG's or MG12's with some upgrades to them. Fuse bypass, crossover upgrade and hardwood frames or mye stands will also each yield incremental improvements in resolution.

I find that I listen to my Maggies at an average 76-78db level with peaks in the low 90db range. Late at night, a bit lower.

RE: Low level listening with big Magnepans, posted on November 3, 2009 at 17:09:05
yagimax
Audiophile

Posts: 3
Location: Victoria B.C.
Joined: September 21, 2009
 I have the MG3.6r with 800wpc and Mye stands. The dynamics are great at 80db,although I do go louder at times.
From what I've read from various reviews,the current Magnepans have improved dynamics at lower volumes.

My next upgrade is to add another 800w and a Bryston 10b crossover.

Add some room dividers and acoustic panels to block the stray spl's unless of course you have an open floorplan.
Pleasing the wife is important for any future purchases!
Thanks for all the responses, posted on November 4, 2009 at 11:00:16
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 but I was hoping everybody was going to say the MMGS were fantastic at lower levels. Not sure where to go from here; I do have a lot of
cone-type speakers to try out, but I miss the MGIIs.

Quad 57's are too wide for my living room, and not so cheap these days either. I've heard mixed reviews about the Martin-Logans (which are tall and slender so a better fit)

I have three vintage tube amps that I could use also...

RE: Thanks for all the responses, posted on November 4, 2009 at 18:29:10
kentaja
Manufacturer

Posts: 3116
Joined: March 26, 2001
 There are other options to look at besides the original Quad. You could consider the ESL63 but these will cost just as much as the original.

Acoustats are inexpensive and rather compact. The Martin-Logans are excellent speakers and are reasonable on the used market. Please remember that while there are many fans of the Magnepans on this board, and rightly so, there are just as many folks that don't like them. One can always find good and bad comments for any product. Before you rule out the ML I would try to give them a listen.

OK, I'll say it...., posted on November 4, 2009 at 18:08:04
RickeyM
Audiophile

Posts: 1206
Location: East Coast
Joined: March 15, 2003
 MMG's are great at lower levels. As long as they're "Gunned" that is. With the sum of the mods and being driven buy a true hi-current amp, the inner, low level detail put out by these things is amazing. You'll still be temoted to turn 'em up, but only brcause the sound keeps making you want more & more.

Have you considered Open Baffle Speakers?/nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:17:41
Showme
Audiophile

Posts: 142
Joined: January 30, 2008
 .

RE: Have you considered Open Baffle Speakers?/nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 12:59:05
Kirk57
Audiophile

Posts: 129
Location: Chicago's North Shore
Joined: December 9, 2008
Contributor
  Since: November 10, 2009
 Hey that is good idea. Have you tried them? I really miss the dipole of the Magnepan, and I like the DIY aspect. I've built a few speakers in my time.

I may give that a try. I think the Orions are OB.
Yes, the Orion is OB ... and there is also John Kreskovsky's "NaO". :-)) ..., posted on November 4, 2009 at 16:42:38
andyr
Audiophile

Posts: 6555
Location: Melbourne
Joined: September 2, 2000
 See here: http://www.musicanddesign.com/naomain.html

Both sensational speakers. :-))

Regards,

Andy


RE: Have you considered Open Baffle Speakers?/nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 16:42:09
Showme
Audiophile

Posts: 142
Joined: January 30, 2008
 I'm interested in the Super-V. All the build is frame. Maybe some decoupling.


http://live.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/ces.pl?grresearch&&ManuView&&&&&&&RMF09
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72093.0

Ray

Page processed in 0.138 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]