Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
78.145.160.80
In Reply to: RE: Current Maggies run full range compared to high pass and subs. posted by GreatSound on December 30, 2020 at 21:34:16
I agree with you on the subs with the 6 foot 3 way ribbon Maggies. I had two pairs of 3 series a few years ago (MGiiia and 3.3R) and found what you describe. I eventually ditched the subs and just used both speakers full range as I far preferred the bass of the Maggie bass panel. The bass extension was generally enough, apart from some on material. A 20 series would obviously be better.
I didn't personally find rolling off the speakers with a XO higher up and using a sub underneath as nice as running the speakers full range and using that fast and big area bass panel. I missed that bass quality. The ported subs I tried were the worst and sealed subs better.
The problem is a ported sub can start but not stop fast enough compared to the way Maggie bass panel can. I also tried an open baffle sub with one driver but that was also a bit slow and didn't add anything. The bass area wasn't wide enough too Those GR research diy subs with 4 drivers look nice though, and the servo amp should enable them to stop much quicker. The bigger area with 4 drivers and more similar bass radiation than a closed box sub pattern might make them much more acceptable. I'd like to try those.
The bass result I had using a sub was running the speakers full range and using an REL strata 3 on its very lowest filter setting in tandem, although the speakers don't have any excursion protection like that so there is no increased max volume. In the end I still preferred the speakers without a sub as the bass was better integrated still.
Never tried a bipolar sealed sub like Satie suggested to me a few times before but would like to.
Yes I've heard that the 3.7 and i don't have an much bass extension as the older 3 series. That's a shame. The midrange panel is bigger and the bass panel smaller compared to older 3 series which is probably the main cause. The 3.6R also has same size panels as the 3.7 and I've heard similar things about that too, although possibly it is not quite as bad. Heard varying things on the 3.6 bass extension.
The 3.7 has first order XOs which I usually personally like more than higher order XOs, but it will cause more limited volume compared to older models, which also isn't too great, along with the reduced bass extension issue...
Follow Ups:
I have active 3-way Maggies - which are basically IIIas with the mid on a separate sheet of mylar to the bass panels. Or you could call them T-IVas with only 1 bass panel.
I pass over to sealed subs with a 24dB L-R XO @ 80Hz; my miniDSP unit enables me to swap between 4 different stored configs 'on the fly' - so I can easily compare running my Maggie bass panels full range vs. chopping them off and bringing in the subs.
I much prefer the latter.
Andy
Hi Andy,
Did you tune the tension button on the 2.6R bass/mid panel to a lower frequency when you reframed them?
I had some 2.6Rs, MGIIIas and 3.3Rs at the same time in the past and directly compared them all. The 2.6R was far lighter and less extended in the bass than the 3 series models. Probably due to the combo of it being a 2 way rather than a 3 way, a less area. I found the 3 series models vastly better and sold on the 2.6Rs very quickly. The panel area on the 3 series is about 800 sq in (with the midrange part) compared to 609 for the 2.6R panel.
So when run full range it might not be such a fair comparison to a 3 series model as you are using the 2.6R panel on the bass, compared to the 3 series bass panel, which is tuned lower and is also larger, although I appreciate the XO setup you have on the speakers is three way, not two way, so that must make some difference.
Yours mids and bass are on separate sheets of Mylar, which helps with congestion etc compared to a stock 3 series.
Assume that your subs are sealed?. Where do you place them in the room? Are their amps standard or servo type?
No I didn't (as I didn't know how to do this!).
Now, you said: The panel area on the 3 series is about 800 sq in (with the midrange part) compared to 609 for the 2.6R panel .
Leaving out the mid panel area on the IIIa - you get bass panel areas of:
* 620 sq in for the IIIa, and
* 609 sq in for the 2.6R.
So not so very different, I suggest. :-))
I never listened to 2.6Rs - I had had IIIas for about 15 years and when I reached the end of my upgrade path, I decided to try and create a IIIa which had a separate mid panel (to get rid of IMD - and vibrations from the bass panel getting to the ribbon cage).
After a couple of years looking, I was able to find the bass panels from a pair of 2.6Rs (which were shipped from Rome) ... and the mid/tweeter panels from a pair of T-IVas (which were shipped from Detroit).
The cross over uses stock IIIa slopes - although I tweaked the filter roll-off points slightly, to get a smoother overall FR. I use a 3-way active XO, using a miniDSP.
Yes, my subs are sealed (outside dimensions are about 3' high x 18" wide x 2' deep) with a 800w Hypex plate amp. So no servo-control.
Subs are in the front corners of the room - see here:
Andy
Thanks for the pic. Yes I remember your photos of the Frabkepans from several years ago too. Really lovely job you did on those frame etc. Wish I had those kind of DIY and woodwork skills!
I see what you mean about the size of the 2.6R and 3 series bass panels but the whole panel size on the 3 series is 800 sq m, - I know a part of it is for mids but I wonder if that greater size also has influence on bass extension. I'm also pretty sure the 2.6R panel is tuned at a higher freq than the 3 series bass section and therefore doesn't have as much extension. Although my comparisons aren't exactly the same as what you are using (as your 2.6R panel is only covering bass in a 3 way system and the stock 2.6R is 2 way) but I can say for sure the difference between the 2.6Rs I had and the two 3 series models was absolutely huge. The 3 series models sounded so much better to me. So much more range, scale, bass volume and especially bass extension. I was pretty disappointed with the 2.6R, after hearing a bit of hype about it.
I once restored a full set of Tympanis IVas in 2012. I had the full set with all the original bass panels with Mylar in tact (the seller delivered them to me. IIRC you had some that got damaged and that was very back luck, (was that you?)). My set came with the mid and bass panels delaminated and having lost continuity. The tweeters worked fine and were original 3 ohm thin wide types. It took me two months to rewire the mid and bass panels, but the speakers didn't work so well in the room I was using at the time compared to the 3 series models. The room was 15 by 24 and wasn't big enough. I was only able to set up the speakers widthways over the 15 ft wall due to various reasons, and it didn't work so well. The bass was very overwhelming and muddy. So I sold them and went back to just using the 3 series models. In hindsight I wish I had tried the IVa mid and tweeter section with a 3 series bass panel only,
which I could have easily done. It might have integrated well and worked much better in that room than the IVa bass panels. Much less width and not so spread out. Separate Mylar for mids and bass, like your setup.
I also didn't know about a trick Satie used on his Tympani IV bass panels on another room of less than ideal size which was to cross over the bass panels lower than stock (stock is 350 Hz Maggie 3rd order LP IIRC) - he changed to a 200 Hz LR 4th order low pass which kept the lower mids out of the bass panels and from spreading out too far. Mind you he used the Neo 8 mids which could play lower than the Maggie mids so he could cross over lower.
I like the sound of the slightly modified MGIIIa XO slopes you use. Less peaky than stock in the mids than the MGIIia XO would generally be a v good thing for most people. (Although some people like those hard mids). Using the passive speaker level XOs I preferred
the MGIIIa with first order mids rather than 2nd order (like the MGIII XO). That was also a bit less peaky. Did you try that too?
Those subs you have look very nice. Bet the system sounds great with those. I was told before by someone (can't remember who) that with Maggies when using a sealed box sub it's important to place subs in the corners
of the room, as if you don't, some of the bass travels to the back wall first and then to the listener (which is a longer overall distance) and it can sound slower than having them in the corners.
Thanks for the pic. Yes I remember your photos of the Frabkepans from several years ago too. Really lovely job you did on those frame etc. Wish I had those kind of DIY and woodwork skills!
I see what you mean about the size of the 2.6R and 3 series bass panels but the whole panel size on the 3 series is 800 sq m, - I know a part of it is for mids but I wonder if that greater size also has influence on bass extension. I'm also pretty sure the 2.6R panel is tuned at a higher freq than the 3 series bass section and therefore doesn't have as much extension. Although my comparisons aren't exactly the same as what you are using (as your 2.6R panel is only covering bass in a 3 way system and the stock 2.6R is 2 way) but I can say for sure the difference between the 2.6Rs I had and the two 3 series models was absolutely huge. The 3 series models sounded so much better to me. So much more range, scale, bass volume and especially bass extension. I was pretty disappointed with the 2.6R, after hearing a bit of hype about it.
I once restored a full set of Tympanis IVas in 2012. I had the full set with all the original bass panels with Mylar in tact (the seller delivered them to me. IIRC you had some that got damaged and that was very back luck, (was that you?)). My set came with the mid and bass panels delaminated and having lost continuity. The tweeters worked fine and were original 3 ohm thin wide types. It took me two months to rewire the mid and bass panels, but the speakers didn't work so well in the room I was using at the time compared to the 3 series models. The room was 15 by 24 and wasn't big enough. I was only able to set up the speakers widthways over the 15 ft wall due to various reasons, and it didn't work so well. The bass was very overwhelming and muddy. So I sold them and went back to just using the 3 series models. In hindsight I wish I had tried the IVa mid and tweeter section with a 3 series bass panel only,
which I could have easily done. It might have integrated well and worked much better in that room than the IVa bass panels. Much less width and not so spread out. Separate Mylar for mids and bass, like your setup.
I also didn't know about a trick Satie used on his Tympani IV bass panels on another room of less than ideal size which was to cross over the bass panels lower than stock (stock is 350 Hz Maggie 3rd order LP IIRC) - he changed to a 200 Hz LR 4th order low pass which kept the lower mids out of the bass panels and from spreading out too far. Mind you he used the Neo 8 mids which could play lower than the Maggie mids so he could cross over lower.
I like the sound of the slightly modified MGIIIa XO slopes you use. Less peaky than stock in the mids than the MGIIia XO would generally be a v good thing for most people. (Although some people like those hard mids). Using the passive speaker level XOs I preferred
the MGIIIa with first order mids rather than 2nd order (like the MGIII XO). That was also a bit less peaky. Did you try that too?
Those subs you have look very nice. Bet the system sounds great with those. I was told before by someone (can't remember who) that with Maggies when using a sealed box sub it's important to place subs in the corners
of the room, as if you don't, some of the bass travels to the back wall first and then to the listener (which is a longer overall distance) and it can sound slower than having them in the corners.
That's very interesting, Colin. Maybe that's why so many people have reported that adding subs spoilt their Maggie sound?
I certainly don't hear any mismatch between the subs and the bass panels You can't really see the sub cones move (when the covers are taken off) - all that seems to happen, when the subs are running, is that the sound stage widens and the Maggies seem to have grown some cojones! :-))
Andy
The way the Finish designer described placing the subs in the corners and the reflection issue when not doing so made a lot of sense. I had always previously thought it was better to place the subs closer to the listener, away from the corners or wall and in line with the speakers, but I hadn't considered how part of the bass wave would travel to the front wall and back.
Sounds like corner placement works really well in your system. So do you just use a symmetrical 80 Hz 4th order XO? Someone else (I think it was Satie) suggested to me to use a 4th order 80 Hz HP on the Maggies and try varying the sub 4th order LP, maybe trying it a bit lower, say 50 or 60Hz, - to try to stop the dipole bass and sub bass radiation patterns interfering too much.
... leave the Maggie HP @ 80Hz but make the sub LP lower.
I will try that soon. :-))
Andy
Good luck! Will be interested to hear how you get on :-)
I have played around a lot with different setups between 1.6 and subs last 5 years... I share same experience - sealed is a good general route to go and at least 2 subs, one per side behind mains near corners. Room modes will help bottom end of subs, but you need to run PEQ to tame and make them sing correctly so it not becomes a boomy/one note bass sound... Phase is also a key to make them integrate. It is important to have some knowledge to make a sub integrate well. Actual room and setup are what it comes down to.However, I have experienced that Maggies do clean/tight bass quite well in untreated rooms due to its dipole design. If you add a dynamic sub you will hear a lot more of that boomy, one note, sound. Dipole seems to be more forgiving generally with room acoustics.
I have tried both extra Maggie bass panels and 3-4 different ordinary dynamic subs. Bass reflex was not able to match due to lack of speed (I guess) and adding Maggie bass panel was not pleasing enough in the punch area so I ended up with multiple subs in closed cabinets. I believe dynamic drivers in dipole config can be even better and Rythmiks with servo systems the end of the road???
However, if you know what you are doing and relief Maggies around 80hz with 12-24 dB HP and work with phase/distance and have a parametrical EQ at hand you will end up with a great sounding system. This will bring clarity to the panels when going little louder. The only down side to Maggie design is bass slam and attack (IMHO) and some music needs well integrated subs to please me, some music not. You pick speakers upon music taste. But I can be wrong about attack as it can be my large room that is playing tricks on me. But I seldom here people talk about Magnepan speakers when it comes to moving air. Rock and EDM sounds thin and bright on lonely Magnepans, but heavenly on less processed genres.
I run my setup through a HT receiver to get it right with filters and distance through mic setup, EQ and a Velodyne SMS-1, but thats me.
Edits: 03/11/21 03/11/21 03/11/21 03/11/21 03/12/21
ColinB wrote: "I once restored a full set of Tympanis IVas in 2012. I had the full set with all the original bass panels with Mylar in tact (the seller delivered them to me. IIRC you had some that got damaged and that was very back luck, (was that you?))."
That was probably me. I repaired the midrange drivers, used foil conductors. Looked great but unfortunately the Mylar came lose on the double sided tape that splits the diaphragm into smaller sections. Basses were re-wired by the guy I bought them from. Ripped a ribbon, the original one from 1985. Have a spare set of the narrow ribbons.
I remember now who advised me to put subs in the corners of the room. It was the designer of DSPeaker antimode products in Finland. Can't remember his name.
When placed in the corners, I would think it would be a lot better to use two subs rather than one as the bass would be more even around the room.
I think that the cones on sealed subs usually don't move like they can do on ported subs as the sealed box has a natural 2nd order HP due to and determine but the size of the sealed box. With a ported sub it's a good idea to add a subsonic filter to stop those crazy subsonic movements below port resonance. On the antimode device there is a 10 Hz subsonic filter for this that works well (although I still don't recommend using a ported sub for Maggie as they are too slow - leave them for Home Theatre use).
FWIW, read the technology page on Brian Ding's Rythmik Audio page about what problem his servo is trying to address and then consider how it applies to an OB/Dipole sub.https://www.rythmikaudio.com/re-radiation.html
"...
Bass re-radiation animationThe animation above shows how definition is lost in conventional subwoofers, ...
What causes the problem?
One cause of this problem is what happens inside the box . A subwoofer driver produces output on both sides of the cone. An ideal subwoofer is one in which the output from the rear of the driver is either eliminated completely inside the box ... Sealed subwoofers seek to eliminate the rear wave. The problem in the case of sealed subwoofers is that the rear wave is re-radiated through the cone.
..."
Edits: 12/31/20
Design execution is what matters most in a sealed subwoofer, and that comes down to sufficient internal damping. The box resonance and cone re-radiation of a well damped, sealed subwoofer system should be negligible. In a properly designed sealed sub, rear wave radiation back through the woofer cone should be virtually nil.
Cheers,
AuPh
I think you missed the point.
Nope, I haven't had that much alcohol yet, even though it is New Year's Eve. 🍺
Cheers,
AuPh
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: