Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
207.102.108.115
My birthday is coming up so I went on a rampage auditioning various high-end audio components. I've imagined as if I have a lot of birthday play money lying around, and what if I was in a position to spoil myself and purchase a dream hi fi for my birthday? This week I went out and auditioned some high quality boxed speakers, just to see if I'm missing anything by not having these beasts in my room.
So I took some time to have a go at Wilson Sophia and Sasha, as well as some high-end Totem and Focal speakers. I spent a lot of time doing focused, critical listening, comparing many of the models by playing same or similar tracks over and over.
Here is my overall impressions -- many of these speakers sound amazing and breathtakingly precise. But there are two things I've been consistently noticing while auditioning:
1. All of them, from the more modest models to the top shelf models, suffer from the same symptom -- they produce sound that is unmistakably a representation of the real sound. There is no way that you could be fooled by the sound coming out of these speakers and think that it's a sound produced by a real event in front of you. In other words, all these remarkably precise and tight speakers produce sound that feels somewhat 'coated', or 'staged'. Almost similar to those dishes made out of resin that you sometimes see in the window of a fast food restaurant -- the semblance of the real dish is remarkable, the colors and the texture are quite faithful, and yet you can right away see that it's not a real dish.
2. Much to my surprise, and even at very loud volumes, I couldn't get the much ballyhooed pressurized chest "thumps" that large boxed speakers are supposed to deliver. These pressurized 'thumps' are supposed to be one of the biggest differentiating factors between boxed and planar speakers. Yet I couldn't get those speakers to deliver the room pressurizing for me. The bass on all of them sounded pretty close to the bass I'm getting from my Maggies. I must say I'm very mystified by that one???
One last thing: the rep explained to me that, unlike my Maggies, those box speakers are very dynamic, very lively, meaning that they reproduce much more faithful degrees of loudness. Try as I might, I couldn't detect how would these speakers sound more dynamic than my Maggies. The sudden 'slam' levels on some of the tracks I've selected were delivered at the same scale as on my Maggies.
Thus I'm now leaving this protracted 'Maggies and the boxed speakers' auditioning without actually being convinced that I'm missing out on something by sticking with Maggies (I must confess that I was sincerely expecting to be blown away by the dynamics and the pressurization with those high-end boxed speakers). If anything, my original impressions remain unperturbed -- overall, Maggies still give me less colored, less congested, less staged, more realistic representation of music than most of these high quality boxed speakers. True, some of these boxes seem to have much more rock-solid soundstage, but I'm thinking that should be fixable in my case with Mye stands.
Thoughts?
Follow Ups:
I have some snell d's a throw in every several months. box speakers have something they do, yes.
but it just not have as big a sound. I dont mean loud. i mean, the feeling of the sound. yes, it is like arepresentation. but the maggies, sometimes, there it is.
it must be the bipolar. it must be
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
Funny story totally relates and concludes a thought process and research that has been ongoing for years.
three months ago
I find out we are moving to a smaller house that wont fit my Acoustat collection so I list them for sale. I end up selling my monitor 3s with servos and my huge box of tubes.
I start searching/auditioning box speakers which are way more appropriate for the space we are moving to. I end up finding out that i really like Bowers and Wilkins speakers. I had never heard them before and I loved what I was hearing. So I start compulsively buying up every pair I can find. I now have five pairs and a sub which I like very much. I get the Matrix 802 series 3 set up with sound anchors and a huge Rotel amp - bi-amped sound great lots of thump good clarity pretty fast considering-
a week ago
Im starting to sour on my B&Ws. I start moving them around trying to see if placement helps. I find they sound better closer together and further from front wall.
a day ago
Im souring more. Losing my affection quickly. Im done
Today - thirty minutes ago
I get online, after an hour of going through all my favorite music trying to fall back in love with my B&Ws to no avail - Ive decided I must go back to Maggies, I miss Maggies. My media room is still full of Acoustats which I love and never ever ever get sick of at all. But, for my listening room BAH on anything else ever! Im coming back to the fold and 1.6s Will be back as soon as I can find a good deal and a fire sale of Bowers and Wilkins speakers in my near future. I will say for bookshelves Ive found that there is no better than the B&W DM1600 they work really well in a small room. Shockingly good speakers.
Ten minutes ago
I read your post and it all makes sense. And Josh your right mostly. I would say Acoustats for low and mids and Maggies for highs. Ive considered putting some small maggies like the wall mountables on top of my Monitor 8s and somehow dedicated the highs only to them. Probably couldnt make it work but that would sound great. Maybe a Behrenger crossover?
Ten minutes ago
I read your post and it all makes sense.
Wow, that's quite an odyssey! I tend to agree with you, because I'm having difficulties even thinking about replacing my Maggies with any of the boxed speakers I've auditioned so far. Truth be told, I haven't auditioned B&Ws recently, but I did listen to them two years ago at the local dealer in their celebrated "Abbie Road" room. Wasn't blown away, to say the least (despite the much touted diamond tweeters etc.)
To me, the best boxed speakers I've listened to so far (such as Focal Utopia Maestro) leave an impression as if I'm dealing with a perfectly wrapped and packaged present, with a bow tie and the whole nine yards. It's all about the design sound, the 'haute couture', if you will, of the high-end sound. Breathtaking and splendid and all that, but somehow not for real. (I can still recall the freakishly deep soundstage of Michel Petrucianni's piano as reproduced by the Meastro speakers -- that's definitely NOT how a real piano sounds in a real room)
Maggies, on the other hand, are not nearly as glamorous sounding, they're more like cinema verite to my ears. Sort of like 16mm movies compared to the glitzy Imax footage. And that's why I prefer them!
Majiccarpet ride, have you ever listened to some of Klipsch's Heritage speakers in a good room?
The Klipschorn is rated down to 33hz and the Cornwall is rated at 34hz, the dynamics are incredible to me anyway. Since Horn's do not have to move very much to play loud, they also have very low distortion, and are also very fast.
Down side is they need eq. to reach their full potential, and their narrow dispersion pattern equals a
smaller sweet spot. A pair of Cornwall's with a McIntosh tube amp really impressed me with their fast dynamics, and low bass playing my Telarc SACD track of The Empire Strikes Back.
Maggie bass is fine, if it doesn't go too low, and isn't played too loud. But, of course, you will want to those features in some music.
I just moved away from Maggie 3.6s, to Revel Ultima Studio. The dynamics difference is night and day. Try PMC speakers - same thing. Even at low volumes, the microdynamics are wonderful. The sound doesn't feel forced, and the lower bass balances the sound.
The new speakers are also 4.5 dB louder (than the Maggies 3.6s) at the same gain settings. I don't have to drive them hard to get great sound.
There are different distortions than on Maggies. Each person likes their own distortions (I hate tubes, but others love them). For me, the Maggie distortions -- expecially of dynamics, ate into my enjoyment of the sound. I have no such problems now. I will be putting my 3.6s up for sale tomorrow.
I really liked the Revel Studios, my only issue was that the images were so small and midget like and they did not image outside the speakers. Other than that, they are simply not big planars and don't meet my preferences, admire them as I may. Nothing like that bass slam and power. They are very dynamic indeed.
I know that maggies in general have a minimum playback level that puts them in the linear range, similar to the Vandersteens in that regard but worse. But that may not be as much of an issue so much if you use your 3.6 with subs and it also appears to be less of an issue when you biamp. With that in place, you can get the dynamics you are looking for.
I recently changed the tonal balance on my modified triamped Tympani IV to mimic the tonal balance of the JMLab Utopias - another speaker with great bass dynamics. I added a rod to brace the top of the bass panels to the wall on top of the large hobbit proportioned feet. With 2kw per channel to drive them, they are cleaner and tighter than the Utopias but lack comparable power below about 25 hz. There is plenty of power there, just not as much. The point I am trying to make is that you can get more of what you want out of maggies while keeping what you liked about them in the first place.
Tympani IV bass is improved with rolling off the bass below 25 hz, which
lowers distortion greatly. Power requirements are reduced considerably
and bass is even more defined. My rotary subwoofer takes over below
30 hertz and bass dynamics are just wonderful.
My friend has Apogee Scintillas driven by huge Krell amplifiers and even
with these amps there is significant distortion below 25 hz. When he
rolled the bass below 25 hz the distortion was reduced dramatically.
He also uses two rotary subwoofers below 30 hz and can achieve even
higher levels than Tympani IV's. The Apogee Scintillas edge out
the Tympanis, but have a very low impedance which require amps with
tremendous current capabilities.
Once again my Martin Logan Summits with the Magneplanar Tympani IV
Bass panels and rotary subwoofer give me all the dynamic slam that
I require.
My room is only 17X19/20 so the demands for power are not that bad and I get about as much SPL as my ears can handle and don't hit the distortion limits yet. Since I already made the investment in the power for the bass panels, I would prefer to have them do the <25hz just a tad better than they do now to continue the rising output with lower freq line. I want 20hz to be +1 or 2db above 30 hz rather than -2 or 3 db below.
Well, that was my issue with the big apogees I would have wanted if budget allowed. But they cost 3X what a Tympani +neo8 array costs (at least for a working pair in good condition) so it is outside the budget and not as easy to drive. Similarly, the rotary sub is way more expensive than anything I can afford and I don't like its installation requirements.
I am working on a pair of 10" + 8" dipole subwoofers (closed box not open baffle) using weighted drivers that should be enough to do my room below 30 hz, but if I can do without them I would.
I did want to ask you how loud you can go at about the octave centered on 1 khz before the Summit panels distort. Have you measured?
The Neo8 array was doing 126 db on female vocals with violins in my unfortunate accidental experiment (couldn't listen for a week after that short exposure) it was still fairly clean.
Sound levels approaching the levels that you describe are damaging
to ones ears. Way too loud for me. Listening over over 100 db for
long periods is even too loud for me and the older I get the more
cautious I get. Low bass does not bother me, but I have found that
low distortion, definition, and a system with a huge sound-stage,
great imaging, and the feeling of a huge space is what I like the most.
Getting ones system to sound great at lower levels (transparency) is
what the Martin Logans, Tympanis and rotary do well (a great
dynamic range).
Room acoustics plays an enormous role in achieving this, as well. Dynamic
range is expanded and with the ability to hear down to the quietest levels,
prevents me from listening to damaging levels that many audiophiles seem
to prefer.
My friends system, consisting of Apogee Scintillas, Stages, Hill Plasma
and two rotary subs sounds great at louder levels, but way too loud
for me.
When I was young I owned Klipschorns and played music at those levels
that you decribed, but soon realized that after listening for extended
periods my ears started to ring (Tinnitus).
These are not normal listening levels it is peak measurements and an indicator of headroom. Normal listening levels average out far lower than that, I normally do piano -20 db on the CD at about 85, on large orchestral works I set for 0 db on CD about 115db, chamber music is usually -20db at 80 db spl. With the new FR I do breach the top a little in the deep bass.
I have the same question about the Summit panels.
Seems to me you could add a sealed sub below 30 Hz without ill effect, if you used a high crossover slope so they only played on the very rare fundamental down there (and of course the room tone and subharmonics that seem to improve ambiance -- but I don't think these are going to color the sound further up, since their levels aren't high enough to produce significant harmonic distortion). I don't think group delay will be a problem below 30 Hz, and neither will room modes, as long as you're below the lowest non-trivial mode an omni should be fine.
Oh! So that's how it went down. These Revels are really good. It is a pity that your room did not help the Maggies and you could not get the best out of them. If I had the dough and the price was right, I would consider buying your 3.6s...though it is a long way to this end, come to think of it.
I'd have to agree that the Ultima Studio are as punchy as they come and can be very detailed. I also liked that they had less of a boxed-sound and a more natural tonality on a wide variety of instruments. I am glad that you found what were looking for. Enjoy!
Thanks Ben. It will be sad to part with the Maggies after 8 years. Perfect condition, cherry woods, and Mye stands.
I'm loving what I'm hearing right now, though with the Revel Ultima Studio. There are sometimes slight distortions, but the timbre of instruments sounds right, and the sound is very clean and natural at lower volumes.
I couldn't agree more. I Have been hitting all the trade shows I can (CES, Apoxna, local salons).
There are some amazing sounding systems out there. The rooms I actively seek out are always 'panels'. They all have virtues that I gravitate to for the same general 'sonic signatures'. For the price point Magggies always win out.
With that said, the one exception (and has been consistantly so) are MBLs. Every time I hear them I say this is perhaps the one speaker I would own if I didn't have to worry about discretionary spending. I fianly heard a verison that is within reach and doesn't sacrifice the incredible 'space' that MBLs do like no one else. These are "mini MBLs" (MBL 126s). While not the same as the 101s (or any reference version) they are stunning and most importantly, within reach.
Wazoo was saying the same thing about MBL's. They're the one speaker he covets above his 3.7's.
Thanks for your post!
Although these are older than the current generation Genesis speakers they have A) a truly planar like transparency and presentation and B) Gut thumping but extremely tight and controlled bass, especially the V and VI models which are servo controlled half active speakers. i own the IIIs and heard the VIs today and frankly they are pretty awesome. I would take them over Wilsons or Focals any day of the week.
and very musical too.Totem Acoustics Shaman
Break in time: 200 – 300 hours
Placement from rear wall: 3' - 12'
Placement distance apart: 6' - 15'Frequency Response: 16 Hz to 22 kHz ±2 dB with proper placement
Impedance: 4 ohms (3 ohms minimum, 12 ohms maximum)
Sensitivity: 86 dB/W/m
Power: 200 W (continuous) - 300 W (maximum short term)
Crossover Point: 220 Hz; 1.2 kHz; 4 kHz; 15 kHz
Sub-bass tuning: 15 Hz
Recommended Amp Power: 100 - 250 W solid state 70 - 300 W tube
Max SPL's from the pair: 112 dB at a distance of 3 metresDriver compliment (5 units)
(10") 1 x 250mm sub-bass: 3" voice coil cast frame, super long throw (1" pp) carbon fiber laminated honeycomb flat cone, weight 12.5 kg
(8") 1 x 200 mm bass-mid: 3" voice coil one-piece moulded cone, cast frame, high power driver
(2") 1 x 54 mm: Titanium alloyed dome, very low resonance frequency, long throw, resonance chamber tuned (very low moving mass)
(1") 1 x 26 mm: Titanium dome, double magnet, vented through polepiece, low resonance frequency
(3/4") 1 x 19 mm: Neodynium magnet, textile dome super tweeterCrossover
Sub bass to mid: 2nd order / 2nd order
Bass mid to mid: 2nd order / 2nd order (no capacitor in mid signal path)
Mid to tweeter: 2nd order / 2nd order
Tweeter to super tweeter: 2nd order / 2nd order (2nd order › 12 dB / octave)Dimensions: Top: w 8.7x d 13.4x h 31.5 "
w 220 x d 340 x h800mm
Bottom: w 12.6 x d 18.5 x h 17.7"
w 320 x d 470 x h 450 mm120Lbs each per side
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Edits: 03/17/12
You forgot the price tag.
We can't all order from the wife's menu.
-
Like any high end speakers, you have to addressed its ancillary equipment to make them sing properly. I'm driving them with Audio Research tube power amp that puts out 250/c together with the ARC Ref pre, ARC CDP and VPI TNT turntable. For more info on my system click the A in my moniker.
Right now these speakers sound like guitar, saxophone, drum kit, Leonard Cohen playing in my dedicated listening room. Also other things to note, they have an excellent midbass coupled with organic sounding midrange and highs to die for and on top of that it has that chest thumping 20Hz frequency response as a bonus.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Very interesting, I agree with your initial thoughts. Maggies do produce the impression of a real musical performance in front of you,that is their quintessential point.
I recently visited a local hi-fi show specifically to hear some quality boxes to see if I was missing out on anything.I did notice the incredible level of detail which was produced by the best, Dali, B&W,Wilson Benesch, stood out (not sure of the models) and I'm fairly certain that it was a level of detail which I don't get with my active 3.6s. However, I noticed that even the largest boxes I heard reduced the sheer scale of the image produced by the 3.6s which makes the whole thing seem more real. I was particularly amused by one set of small boxes which seemed to be reproducing a jazz band composed entirely of midgets (sorry,PORGS)
I suspect that only big electrostatics can do both, but I previously had Martin Logan SL3's, and although they did produce incredible detail, it was always rather fey and artificial.
Conclusion, stick with the Maggies.
Very interesting, I agree with your initial thoughts. Maggies do produce the impression of a real musical performance in front of you,that is their quintessential point.
I recently visited a local hi-fi show specifically to hear some quality boxes to see if I was missing out on anything.I did notice the incredible level of detail which was produced by the best, Dali, B&W,Wilson Benesch, stood out (not sure of the models) and I'm fairly certain that it was a level of detail which I don't get with my active 3.6s. However, I noticed that even the largest boxes I heard reduced the sheer scale of the image produced by the 3.6s which makes the whole thing seem more real. I was particularly amused by one set of small boxes which seemed to be reproducing a jazz band composed entirely of midgets (sorry,PORGS)
I suspect that only big electrostatics can do both, but I previously had Martin Logan SL3's, and although they did produce incredible detail, it was always rather fey and artificial.
Conclusion, stick with the Maggies.
True, most boxed speakers deliver laser sharp soundstage but often resembling toy sized stage. Not only that, but the sound and the stage feels decidedly 'enclosed'. Sort of like a picture on HDTV feels enclosed, an almost perfect but at the same time artificial rendering of the real performance.
Some reps were explaining to me how two-way speakers are preferred for their more coherent presentation (one less XO to worry about), so maybe that explains it?
True, some of these boxes seem to have much more rock-solid soundstage, but I'm thinking that should be fixable in my case with Mye stands.
this is my thinking, a bit less there s with MG but it is less colored also.
True, some of these boxes seem to have much more rock-solid soundstage, but I'm thinking that should be fixable in my case with Mye stands.
I totally agree. I was quite smitten and honestly blown away by the rock solid imaging most of those high quality boxed speakers delivered. Laser precision comes to mind. Maggies, on the other hand, with their flimsy physique keep swaying and swinging while playing, and the imaging is a bit blurry. Or, more bluntly, not even close to the imaging those high end speakers can offer.
I'm sure Mye stands is the way to go, I'm just debating whether I could justify that cost. But also in addition to the stands, razoring? Would razoring somewhat stabilize the imaging?
Myes can apparently help, but I don't think the Maggies are ever going to offer razor-sharp imaging, because of the lateral offset of the drivers (less in the three-ways) and the reflection of the rear wave (you could eliminate that with absorption but then you'd reduce the sense of space).
Stands improve imaging alot.
Razoring would do so as well.
using subs to take off the deep bass from your maggies will help with this as well.
I've heard that the Mye's improve imaging specificity, but the drivers in Maggies are laterally offset so there's always going to be a certain amount of horizontal blur, depending on the model and the listening distance. (Omnis have vertical blur, the worst case of that I've ever heard were the Infinity IRS Beta's, in which each frequency range seemed to be coming from a different height -- because, well, it was.)
Funny, when I worked for Audio Research here in Minneapolis back in the early 90's these were the speakers one of the engineers used to listen to every single amp before it left the building. This was also the case with all repairs or factory modifications too.
I remember the guys first name was Jack. He was supposed to have "golden ears" which is why he listened to stereo equipmentall day.
Sounds like a good job. :-)
The IRS Betas were wonderful and revealing speakers, but they were so tall they did have that weird height thing, at least in my friend's setup. Which being a line source the IRS V didn't have, I spent a few hours with it once at Lyric trying different preamps and I think it had the most remarkable imaging I've ever heard.
Having owned Merlins (my favorite/best of all the “box” speakers I’ve had), Vienna Acoustics, Monitor Audio & Sonus Faber “GUARANI’S - I “One reporters opinion” find that Maggies best them all. As for bass/bass thump I’ve always lived in a condo/apt., therefore I’m cautious/considerate and don’t like going below 40 HZ, which also makes Maggies (particularly the MMG’s I’m using, perfect.
Also, I’ve found (that’s me, myself and I) to get deep bass “right/real” when listening to “music” takes a real effort and over the years I’ve heard very few speakers get it “right”.
In closing, Maggies for me are aggregately the best of the worst and I have no urge to look further, I guess I’m Magnetized/Biased.
All other Speakers can be setup RIGHT in a shop...just not Magnepans...Right
...So one guy goes to any shop to hear what...you have to have any speaker in the home for more a day..You have to live with any speakers....to say this or that....I had the 1.7 in my home for 6weeks an i thought thay sounded lifeless....But Some here who never even saw a pr said this could not be right...So this means nothing...Well to you Maybe an to other that think Magnepans are all that....goodluck with your one mans o-pine
All other Speakers can be setup RIGHT in a shop...just not Magnepans...Right
...So one guy goes to any shop to hear what...you have to have any speaker in the home for more a day..You have to live with any speakers....to say this or that....I had the 1.7 in my home for 6weeks an i thought thay sounded lifeless....But Some here who never even saw a pr said this could not be right...So this means nothing...Well to you Maybe an to other that think Magnepans are all that....goodluck with your one mans o-pine
I agree that fair comparisons can only be made over more extended periods of time. Still, one would think that certain features, like crystal clear soundstage, stunning dynamics and impressive bass, would reveal themselves immediately and on the spot.
Well, in my case, I was instantly impressed and disarmed with the rock-solid imaging many of those high end boxed speakers delivered right off the bat. Most of them sure beat my Maggies in the soundstage department, hands down.
However, when it comes to dynamics and the bass, I just wasn't impressed (nor convinced). But I remain open, and if someone can demo me a pair of speakers that will blow Maggies out of water with their dynamics and bass, I'd LOVE to hear that!
In my experience, those speakers typically have more precise imaging, but can't do what a dipole line source can -- transport you into a large, realistically sized space, such as an auditorium, or reproduce height cues. You tend to get the "miniature instruments on a miniature stage" effect.
In my experience, those speakers typically have more precise imaging, but can't do what a dipole line source can -- transport you into a large, realistically sized space, such as an auditorium, or reproduce height cues. You tend to get the "miniature instruments on a miniature stage" effect.Another thing I've noticed with many boxed speakers whose claim to fame is that they image like the devil is that they tend to create an over-the-top smooth animation. What I mean by that is they kind of remind me of those cheesy computer-animated dinosaurs who move so smoothly across the screen, and appear to be weightless, like a soap bubble. You know the super slick, gliding computer animation that sometimes induces motion sickness?
My Maggies never do that. Their animation is vigorous, sometimes a bit distorted and chunky, but always life like. I never get motion sickness from listening to my Maggies, while I got a few 'just about to barf' moments while listening to those ultra high end Focal Meastro Utopia monsters. It just appears caricatural to me how these big boxes portray the band in front of me.
Edits: 03/21/12
Heh, yes, now that you mention it, I know the effect.
Truth is, even the speakers that had the most amazing imaging I've ever heard, the IRS V's, sounded a bit ersatz to me in their holographic perfection. E.g., I had a sense of holographic precision so vivid that I felt like I could thread my way between the instruments. It was stunning and still memorable after all these years -- the only problem being that I've never heard that in a real performance.
LOL! Try the conductor's spot. The problem is that it is still a totally different experience and not what we are used to.
I suddenly wonder if anyone has ever tried a binaural recording from that spot (and height).
One can get the holographic experience with Maggies, most sharply with small groups. I was very pleased that the 3.7s could sustain this kind of imaging in a demo room (with 900w/ch). What I get of it at home required some effort and still is not the impressive scale of larger Maggies.
It must have been awesome to hear the Infinity do this, along with their major dynamic impact!
A lot of people still say that the IRS was the best speaker that they ever heard.
I've heard that some conductors want the people who listen to their recordings to hear what they do, and that this explains the "strange" perspective of some of them . . .
confirming that I'm not missing out on anything! :-))
And, with respect, if you still have the MG-1 Imps listed in your "system", then my "Frankenpans" are streets ahead of those - so they deliver even more of the "Maggie goodness"! :-))
But I must say, I do miss exactly what someone commented recently, after he came round to my place, to hear some Maggies, and then I went round to his place and said " Wow! What bass! ". His comment was " Yes, I thought you were a bit bass light, when I came round. "! :-)) Now this guy has dipole ribbons (an Aussie design from 20 years ago by Trevor Lees) but he augments them with a pair of terrific, dual-cone woofers handling the low end.
So are you saying the Sophias, Sashas, Totems and Focal speakers didn't impress you by having a whole lot more bass?
Regards,
Andy
So are you saying the Sophias, Sashas, Totems and Focal speakers didn't impress you by having a whole lot more bass?
Correct. Truth be told, I was expecting much more bass, at least by the order of magnitude. Nothing like that happened in any of the demos so far. The bass I've been haring from those boxed speakers is pretty much on par, volume and warmth-wise, with what I'm getting out of my Maggies. Often times (as with some top line Focals) the bass sounded artificially heightened. For example, the bass on the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour" sounded ridiculously boomy and in full bloom, totally flooding the room in an almost comical fashion, and it didn't really convey the famous 'Beatles' sound at all. I remember returning home after that demo and playing the same track right away, and being shocked hearing how much more natural McCartney's bass sounded on Maggies. No hype, no fuss, no muss, just honest to god electric bass guitar that meshes beautifully with Ringo's drums, driving the band the way Mother Nature intended. With Focals, instead of driving the band in service of music, McCartney's bass sounded annoyingly show-offish.
I completely agree with you on this. I would much rather listen to my maggies than just about any box speaker (though there are some I would be interested in trying).
I agree, however I'd say they are not high-end speakers when it comes to their price.
.
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Exactly.
1. Yes! I've always had that impression. The typical box is like an artificial flavor. It may taste like strawberry, but no one would confuse it for the real thing. Or another way I look at it, a good box speaker is like a picture on an HDTV, while a good planar is like looking at a real scene through a somewhat smeared window.
2. Chest thumps require huge SPL's at very low frequencies. Clubs and concerts typically go for SPL's of 120 dB or so, the OSHA limit. Most boxes won't do that, particularly in the bass -- and if they will, you don't want to expose your ears to it. But some kids might.
I do think dynamics are better in large dynamic speakers, and even better in studio monitors (few audiophile speakers can reproduce all acoustical music at natural levels). But we're talking very high levels here. People sometimes read something in a review and ignore the fact that the reviewer is talking about extremes that most people don't go for in actual listening.
Bottom line -- I don't own Maggies because they're cheap, I own them because they're a good compromise between less realistic boxes and dynamically limited stats, and because they have better bang for the buck than speakers of comparable quality. I mean, what else would I get? The Quads wouldn't fit my needs, I need something that can do home theater. The Acoustats are too tall for my room, the Sound Labs too big, the Logans have sucky woofers or limited bass (CLX). So that pretty much leaves Maggies and Apogees, which are no longer officially supported (though Graz is doing a great job of filling in for them).
If I ever want to go better than the IVa's, I'll do Satie's Neo mod, and then something like DEQX, and if I want to go even better I'll make a hybrid that no commercially available speaker can touch.
Or another way I look at it, a good box speaker is like a picture on an HDTV, while a good planar is like looking at a real scene through a somewhat smeared window.
This could be the best analogy I've heard so far! It really speaks volumes, and it faithfully captures how I felt while demoing all those high-end boxed speakers. A perfect, crystal clear rendition eerily similar to the high quality HDTV, but also eerily lifeless and somehow hollow.
Strange, isn't it? I really don't know why that is. There are so many things that are different, not all of them in the planar's favor. But I suspect it has a lot to do with the box. Aluminum enclosure dynamics seem to do better than traditional wood or MDF ones. I'm wonder how open-baffle dynamics compare. A good friend of mine had a pair of DQM-10's, and in all the times I was at his house, we never listened to them.
I have one point of contention with what you have said Josh. Not all electrostats are dynamically limited. If you listen to a larger pair of Acoustats you will find that they are more dynamic than Maggies.
I have, however, heard some box type speakers that sound pretty realistic.
If people keep making interesting posts I'll never get my room painted!
I guess my first question is which Maggies? I used to pop the occasional fuse on my 1-D's, and at that point they were louder than anyone would want to listen, and more importantly, still clean. Those were Maggies that could do metal. At the opposite extreme, my MMG's start to get veiled/intermodulate at realistic levels with large orchestral works.
Also, Satie was just talking about getting 120 dB+ levels from his IV's. Did you see his post on that, and the experiment he ran with Acoustats?
I too have gone in search of the great mythical box speaker, and left feeling let down. So far the speaker I have liked most was Klipsch Cornwall. The bass was very fast and deep, however I need to hear a pair of La Scalla's or Klipshorn's. I have heard them in the past but it was so long ago it does not count.Another problem I have experienced is bad acoustically, sounding show room's. Be it for box speakers or planers, I hate driving hours to some place or being out of town visiting and the room sucks.
The next box speakers I will probably audition will be YG Acoustics, they give some pretty logical and precise answers about what makes their speakers great. Versus the usual feel good kool aid a lot speakers mfg.'s give you.
Josh, can you tell more about the Acousat's plus's and minus's? The 2+2's were the first planer's I had ever heard and what started my love for the planer sound.
Edits: 03/16/12
Hard to think of any minuses for the Acoustats, except maybe their size. Like many stats, they tend to beam, and that creates a certain kind of sound that's very clean but a bit bright or hyper detailed. (Wendell points out that that hyper detail effect is absent in the Hill Plasmatronics, despite their extension, and he thinks its an artifact and I tend to agree, but I was just discussing this with Jonathan Valin and he disagrees.)
I think the Quad 63's are the only stats that really get the power response right, maybe the Sound Labs (which are faceted/curved but much wider than the Logans so have better power response.) Also, they aren't the most detailed electrostats, but that only means they're a bit less transparent than any other kind of speaker except a plasma. They'll play pretty deep but Maggies are better in the bass and midbass and more dynamic unless you take bass load off the Acoustats as some people do. They won't quite match the all-time great Quad 57 midrange. They're incredibly reliable, the panels just keep going and going.
Taken overall, I think I prefer the sound of big Maggies, which seems more *natural* to me despite the better transparency of the Acoustats. It's a matter of overall compromises and I think better power response. But if you let each one play where it does best -- Maggie woofers for the midbass, Acoustats for the mids, Maggie ribbons for the highs -- I think you'd have a pretty amazing combination.
I owned both types and the Spectras are much better than the earlier ones.
Interesting, thanks. I knew the Spectras had better dispersion, but I didn't know they were more detailed.
I think you (and me, for that matter! :-)) ) need to follow Satie's lead with the Neo 8s instead of the T-IVa mid panels! :-))
Then we will get at least Acoustat mids! :-))
Regards,
Andy
The Neo8 mids are not better than the Acoustats at normal volumes they are very nearly as good, the advantage is when you need that extra power when the sax is wailing, when the violin section swells in a tutti, when the cymbals crash, when the singer belts it out. The output simply continues without compression or distortion for another 10db+.
Any figures on how loud the Acoustats will go if you relieve them of bass duty?
Depends on size.
The bigger ones will do bass in particular and midbass significantly louder and midrange proper (at and above orchestral A) a little louder. They compress above 100db and distort heavily above 105 or so. My 2+2 owner friend had them crossed over at 50 hz to a compact sealed 10"sub. He was using the Transnova amps and we managed to get near 110 db peaks on the combo - though the sub was running out of steam a little before that. Beyond that, I can only repeat what he told me in that the Acoustats lacked bass and midbass power and bass would bottom out at roughly 100 db, leaving little midbass energy beyond that, but he said the midbass came to life once he introduced the subwoofer.
If you want the clear loud transients with an Acoustat you must use a sub to preserve range of motion on the diaphragm into the midrange. If you just want the bass to be loud, you can use one of the 6 or 8 panel acoustats and they will do it readily, but not give you the powerful middle mids for the likes of Etta or Berganza.
On another bass note:
I had been listening to Howard playng Liszt Hungarian Raphsodies and Pagannini etudes, and was really impressed by the new Utopia like warm tonal balance punchig the lowest notes. The transition to the single wire low notes was incredibly clear and obvious in the dryish acoustic. I measured it at 105 db c weighted peaks. It was very satisfying.
I then put the Arrau Transcendentals on Phillips to play, the bass was nowere nearly as defined and there was a giant warm acoustic unmistakeable in its overwhelming takeover of my room. There was nowhere near as much punch. So I started raising the volume till the midrange tube amp was getting microphonic noises in it. I took out the SPL meter again and noted that the peaks were just over 110 db and shut things down to move the amps around so that the tubes were further away and the trannies were first in line for the soundwaves from the bass. Playing again, the impactful bass of the Howard recordings on hyperion were still not there with the Arrau/phillips, so I continued raising the volume but even reaching over 120 db peaks (c weighted) and my ears ringing and on beyond the verge of pain, I could not get the desired bass impact because of the recording venue - the large space of the Concertgebow. Though the large hall bass is satisfying in its own wrapping warm way, you really want your solo piano in a drier acoustic and smaller chamber to have the requisite satisfying impact.
But now that my ears are shot for the weekend, I can only listen sotto voce.
Wow, 120 dB, that's not bad (for anything except your ears, that is). Agree that a recording made in a large hall isn't going to have that kind of impact, and I'd think that raising the levels up to what you'd experience next to the piano would distort the overall presentation even more than what the butchers I mean producers did when they compressed it. (Did I ever tell you about the one time I heard Horowitz live? The remarkable thing about it wasn't the loud passages, but the preternatural evenness and quietness of his pianissimos. Control like I've never heard and didn't think was possible. Every time he played one, the audience would literally gasp and you could hear the intake of breath in the auditorium. Amazing, but completely absent from the recordings. I think there should be a law that dynamic range can't be altered, and that all recordings have to have an absolute SPL reference.)
Thanks for the Acoustat levels. I'm wondering whether you could get to 115 dB if you move the crossover even higher, say to 80 Hz or more. I'm curious about the practicality of a planar/electrostatic hybrid with good dynamics (minimum 115 dB, though of course higher would be better). Also about the practicality of a Mmlrot1-type Tympani/electrostat kludge with wide dynamics. I think that would pretty much rule out the wider double-width Acoustats if you kept the ribbon tweeter because you'd have to put it too far away from the acoustic center of the midrange, and I'm not wild about beamy speakers so if it were me, I'd want to. Logans might be a better choice since you can run them full range without too much beaming, but I'm not sure what their dynamic range is either (the hybrids cross over significantly higher).
Nobody makes what I'd really want, a high-output delay line line source stat, though I gather Kentaja's friend is working on it. But he was talking about something too wide for this use anyway.
Yes, you did mention your Hprowitz experience, obviously made a deep impression on you. I was a child when he retired so I only know him from recordings, of which I have some dozen from scarlati to liszt Rachmaninov and Chopin.
I don't think you can get any more than that level of mid power out of Acoustats, definitely not 115 db. I can't tell whether the issue was the near clipping of the Transnovas or the speaker, but I am inclined to think it was the speaker. Coming to think about it, that listening session at loud volume was the first time I noticed the kazoo noise from an ESL, and the only time it was a bother.
I think the Martin Logans have even less headroom than the Acoustats. The CLS with its big surface never managed to do midbass as well as I heard from the acoustat 2+2 with or without the sub.
So till someone does a better than Kingsound stat, then Acoustats (4 to 8 panel models) are pretty much all there is in ESLs that do good midbass and believable bass - but for the giant soundlabs.
I think it was far and away the most spectacular performance of anything I've ever heard. By leaps and bounds. I've been to lots of great concerts by great pianists but this was like watching Superman. I can understand why people used to line up all night to get tickets.
The reason I scored them is that there was a scandal -- it was revealed that Carnegie Hall was giving blocks of tickets away to friends and connections rather than selling them to the general public. So Horowitz cancelled his scheduled Carnegie Hall concert and rescheduled at Avery Fischer Hall. It was on short notice and my brother got word of it before word got out and the lines formed.
I don't think anyone is ever going to get more bass/midbass levels out of electrostatics of a reasonable size because it's pretty much determined by the breakdown voltage of air, the only way around that is to use gas-filled bags and that creates problems of its own. Quad's folded woofer design does increase surface area and output, that's one possible way to go, but I imagine it would be very expensive for a large woofer. And the figure I've seen is that planar magnetic panels will give you 10 times the excursion of stats.
I was more curious about the SPL potential of the panels in the midrange, where excursions are much less and with a reasonable baffle size you don't have to compensate for 6 dB/octave dipole cancellation, which means that below Fequal Xmax has to increase as the cube as frequency decreases. I mean, everyone agrees that Tympani midbass is unequaled, and most people agrees that electrostatics are unsurpassed in the midrange where they play, and from what I've seen the two blend very well. So if you limited the stats to the midrange and got their level up . . .
I guess now you need to get on with that full razor mod and some new stands.
LOL! NOW you know.I am listening to Don Grusin's The Hang disc as I write. Sofa shaking, drums hitting me, pianos cryatal clear and at their respective location, large deep stage...just MMGs, no subwoofer.
But of course, Maggies are not dynamic speakers...yeah, right.
Edits: 03/16/12 03/16/12 03/16/12
LOL! NOW you know.
I am listening to Don Grusin's The Hang disc as I write. Sofa shaking, drums hitting me, pianos cryatal clear and at their respective location, large deep stage...just MMGs, no subwoofer.But of course, Maggies are not dynamic speakers...yeah, right.
That's the thing that I was trying to clarify for myself. Everybody keeps telling me that, charming as they are, Maggies just keep playing music at same SPL levels, and are not capable of going louder etc. Well, my ears are telling me otherwise, but I thought maybe I've been too accustomed and 'brainwashed' by the Maggies charm. So I decided to go out and seek some awe-inspiring demos.
The first thing that reps tell me is that boxed speakers are called 'dynamic speakers' for a reason -- they do dynamics better than any other types of speakers can do. OK, cool, let's hear that much ballyhooed dynamics. But upon sitting down and listening to a carefully selected demo, I am left nonplused. Where is the stunning dynamics? I'm not hearing anything from the quiet/loud point of view that I'm not already hearing from my Maggies.
Next -- the bass. Yeah, we all know that boxed speakers are designed to pressurize the room, while planars are airy fairy and cannot make the windows rattle etc. Bzzzt! Wrong. I haven't heard any deep bass sounds that I cannot hear from my Maggies (except, of course, the full bloom bottom octave, which, by the way, only a few rare recordings ever contain).
So same as you, I'm left sitting there, scratching my head, asking myself: what's lacking with my Maggies? I was prepared to accept that life is a series of compromises and that you cannot have both startling dynamics and deep bass that pressurizes the room while at the same time having shockingly stunning realism of instrumental and vocal texture, timbre, the speed, the lush reproduction, the irresistible sparkle that Maggies deliver.
Turns out, you can:)
I still remain openminded for someone to come along and convince me otherwise; however, the proof is in the pudding, and if you cannot play me a track on some non-Maggies speakers that would obviously leave Maggies in the dust when it comes to lightning fast, life-like swelling of volume, I remain skeptical.
Edits: 03/19/12
MCR: "So same as you, I'm left sitting there, scratching my head, asking myself: what's lacking with my Maggies? I was prepared to accept that life is a series of compromises and that you cannot have both startling dynamics and deep bass that pressurizes the room while at the same time having shockingly stunning realism of instrumental and vocal texture, timbre, the speed, the lush reproduction, the irresistible sparkle that Maggies deliver."
Right. With attention to details, Maggies don't sacrifice too much of the impact in delivering other more important goodies. To be sure, it is harder to get them to deliver that dynamic impact, which is far easier for some boxes. Quite a few things need to fall in place for it to happen with Maggies, but it is worth pursuing it.
At the end of the day, some boxes will be able to deliver far more impact. However, you'd have to spend very dear money in order to get it with no sacrifice of other qualitative attributes. For Maggies, those other attributes are usually par for the course, and at a bargain price.
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: