Planar Speaker Asylum

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

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

MUG Board

Perception of Maggie Bass response

209.156.182.210

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ MUG Board ] [ FAQ ]

Without me trying to reitterate the well known qualities of unbaffled Planar dynamic drivers, I wanted to pose a question about a bass preception quality, which in my experience is unique to Magnepan speakers. The bass always sounds "unconvincing" to my ears. Although the bass is clearly audible and seems more or less balanced to same SPL level of the rest of the frequency spectrum, there is no "Impact" or "percussive" feel to the bass. While the bass extension naturally improves as the size of the panels increases, this peculiar quality of audible bass which is lacking in percussive feel is consistent from the MMGs through the MG 20s.
The obvious expalnation is that the phase cancellation of the open baffle design just dramatically reduces level and extension of the bass but I think this explanation is mistaken. Using a tone generator and my SPL meter, I get bass frequency responses on the various maggies which are in line with what Magnepan publishes for the frequency response of the various units, yet using conventional baffled cone drivers at the same 50 hz test tone, I get an entirely different bass feel--so the difference is not do to a simple difference in Sound Pressure level. As truely wonderful as any of the Maggies are in creating the illusion of "being there" when listening to accoustic music instaments, I think its this very quality of bass without feel and impact which makes the maggies so uninvolving with Rock music.
Anybody who is familiar with comparing Magnepan speakers with conventional box speaker will be familiar with the bass characteristic I am referring to. Do any of you have some thoughts on the source for this difference in bass qualities?

Follow Ups:

Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response JMCIII 04:14:13 06/03/00 (0)
As has been said before, mostly in reviews of Maggies, the quality of the sound, and especially the bass, is determined by how a speaker loads a room. Cone drivers move air in a manner completely different from how a planner or electrostatic driver will. This goes a long way toward the sound differences you've noticed. Keep in mind room size (as with any speaker) and placement (a BIG qualification with Maggies) will have a lot to do with your perception of bass reproduction. Your points are valid, however. Maybe that's why some recommend the use of a quality sub-woofer with Maggies??!!
Also, both previous posters have made quite valid points. It does take quite a bit of power to make Maggies sing, but a Maggie buyer should know that going in.
All I know is that my 1.6's, in a small 15.5' x 13' x 7' room, offer up bass of better quality than any other speaker I've had in house (all cone drivers) before. Hey, as Steve Rochlin say, "Enjoy The Music."
John Crossett
Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response kevin 04:04:04 06/03/00 (0)
Two thoughts. First, an increase in output in the 60-100hz range will usually be percieved as an increase in overall bass response, even at lower frequencies. Many, if not most, cone speakers have a bit of boost in this area for this reason. Perhaps Maggies sound more natural, but yet "lightweight" because they do not have this characteristic? Second, low bass notes coupled with a lot of distortion frequently sound as if they have more "weight" than the same notes with low distortion. Again, this high distortion is a characteristic of many cone speakers trying to produce bass that they they shouldn't. Perhaps, up to their spl limit, Maggies simply distort less as well?
Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response DrM 22:24:36 06/02/00 (5)
Hello,
My personal belief is that bass slam is an artificial expection which comes from people's ears getting conditioned from the sound of non acoustic instruments. People hear rock music live, and what are you hearing? Conventional drivers being driven by electronic instruments. We are surrounded by this music that is played through cone drivers in the supermarket, the car, the elevator etc. So a funny thing happens, our brains start to use this as a reference and you perceive it as being more "real". Take your average citizen from Vienna, circa 1750 and ask them this question. Don Giovanni, Zauberflote, the symphonies certainly didn't have anything approaching that.
Think about this, by the late 1800's orchestras (by all accounts) had a heavy, dark sound. They typically tuned below our present day A440 standard. Now look at the late twentieth century. Orchestra's are *bright*. Oftentimes an orchestra starts out at A440, and its well known that by the end of the work it has floated up to A445 or something. People prefer this penetrating, brighter sound. Why is that? I believe its the influence of popular music, setting the standard for what sounds "right" to our brains.
Now Maggies produce the most accurate bass I have ever heard. A 10 foot bass drum in Shostokovitch 1 will knock you off your feet with my 3.6's. The lower octaves of a bass clarinet have a clarity and weight that is stunning (speaking as a clarinetist). A piano's lower octaves is so palatable I feel I can reach out and touch the steel strings.
So if you want to get pounded by the sound of electronic instruments then get a cone speaker. If you want acoustic music then get a Maggie. My opinions, feel free to disagree.

-Dan
- Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response Dr.M 11:15:36 06/03/00 (1)
  DrM,
  I completely agree with most of your comments about bass response. there is no question that over time our ears become conditioned to particualar sound characteristics and perceive these characteristics as normal, otherwise the typical mass-market speakers with exagerated mid-bass and overly bright midrange wouldn't be selling so well, and manufacturers like Magnepan and Dynaudio would be in every shop that sells speakers. I also think this helps explain the audiophile's disatisfaction with whatever system he currently has;once his ears get accustomed to the improved level of accuracy, eventually all he can hear is that minor imperfection in the cables, the cartridge, the amp, etc. I do disagree however, with the assertion that Maggie bass is the most accurate--even Magnepan knows better than to make such a claim.
  Anybody who listens acoustically to the slam of a really large bass drum and compares it with a reproduction via any loudspeaker should hear the difference right away, and Maggies--even the 20's, don't get as close as the best cone drivers. if you don't believe your ears, look at the math: Divide your panel's width in inches by 13,560 and that will give you the lowest frequency in hertz that the baffle can effectively launch, use the heigth and divide by 13,560 to get the absolute lowest frequency the panel will reproduce without complete phase cancellation. An open-back driver can't launch a wave who's size is larger than the maximum dimension of the baffle panel its mounted to. Don't believe me? Take a tone generator, set it to 20hz and feed to your preamp. Then place a test mic and frequency analizer (not a Sound Pressure Level meter)about 40' from the Maggie panel. Since a 20hz wave is about 60' high, so you shouldn't miss much at the 40' distance. Then run the 20hz signal through your Maggies--you'll hear bass but you're hearing harmonic overtones; you won't be able to measure anything at 20hz...
  - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response DrM 17:57:47 06/04/00 (0)
    Dr.M
    Hey no fair, you've got my moniker!! ;) No of course your absolutely
    right about being able to really reproduce the sound of these
    monsters, I used to have to sit in front of them in the orchestra
    and have my dentures fall out every time they hit! I meant that
    the Maggie, for me at least, is able to reproduce a convincing
    low bass.
    > I do disagree however, with the assertion that Maggie bass
    > is the most accurate--even Magnepan knows better than to
    > make such a claim.
    your right, I shouldn't make those kind of assertions. All
    equipment fails, the trick is to get one that fails in a way
    you don't care. But I think Magnepan does make some claims
    about their bass response - the "Maggie bass" ;)
    -D
- Re: Why is that? Travis 08:58:01 06/03/00 (2)
  Dan, you wrote: People prefer this penetrating, brighter sound. Why is that? I believe its the influence of popular music, setting the standard for what sounds "right" to our brains.
  IMHO, speaking as a singer, having sung in operas, large choral works with orchestra, etc., I think it is the violins that keep stretching the pitch upwards in an effort to be heard above the winds. (Certainly it's not the singers!) I don't think "people" prefer this sound. It's the classical musicians in the orchestra that have control over the pitch. Bass is another question altogether, and I think you are right regarding bass "slam" in rock music. It's artificial, and....that's O.K. Just my thoughts. Wish I could hear your 3.6s. Happy Listening. P.S. As a fan of the clarinet, my fav is Eddie Daniels. Whose yours?
  - Re: Why is that? DrM 09:46:58 06/03/00 (1)
    Hey Travis,
    
    > IMHO, speaking as a singer, having sung in operas,
    > large choral works with orchestra, etc., I
    > think it is the violins that keep stretching the pitch
    > upwards in an effort to be heard above the winds.
    interesting theory! William Bennet, oboeist for SFO put this
    idea in my head about 15 years ago and I've thought about
    it off and on since then. I could believe this I suppose,
    but it doesn't explain the fact that orchestras in the
    1800's liked such a heavy sound. Musicians were just as
    competetive back then by all accounts. Hmmm
    > Bass is another question altogether,
    It is, I meant to point out how our listening perceptions
    are conditioned by more than the music we are listening to
    > and I think you are right regarding bass "slam" in rock
    > music. It's artificial, and....that's O.K.
    agreed. I'm a die hard classical s[nl]ob and my prejudices
    probably leaked out ;)
    > As a fan of the clarinet, my fav is Eddie Daniels. Whose
    > yours?
    none, I can't stand listening to recordings of the clarinet.
    A oboeist (sp?) friend of my has the same problem, she can't
    listen to the oboe. Ah! Here's another perception thing. When
    I play I hear it very differently (my skull bones vibrate
    from contact with the horn), it sounds deeper and more resonant.
    When I hear them as a listener they sound whiney and shrill.
    But David Shifrin is very good, I never liked Stoltzman's vibrato
    or squeaks :) Your a vocalist eh? Tell me about Fischer-Dieskau,
    what do the singers think of him?
    -D
    - Re: Why is that? Travis 14:54:31 06/03/00 (0)
      Hi Dan:
      You wrote: > the fact that orchestras in the
      1800's liked such a heavy sound
      Here's my problem with that...I'm not sure I understand the use of the word "heavy". Actually "transparent" would be a word I would use for the use of gut strings, less tension on the bow, vibrato as an ornament instead of a continuos artifact, natural trumpets, fewer players, smaller bore wind instruments and no music with bass below 42 Hz.
      > I can't stand listening to recordings of the clarinet.
      A oboeist (sp?) friend of my has the same problem, she can't
      listen to the oboe. Ah! Here's another perception thing. When
      I play I hear it very differently (my skull bones vibrate
      from contact with the horn), it sounds deeper and more resonant.
      When I hear them as a listener they sound whiney and shrill.
      But David Shifrin is very good, I never liked Stoltzman's vibrato
      or squeaks :) Your a vocalist eh? Tell me about Fischer-Dieskau,
      what do the singers think of him
      Interesting...I don't mind listening to singers. As a beginning vocalist I grew up on F-D. He was the greatest for lieder, and great in a limited number of opera roles. Unfortunately I never heard him "live" so it's hard to get a grasp of what he really sounded like in a "house". I get the impression he was pretty canny with the microphone and that's not a put-down. Today, one of my favorite albums of song is the "Vagabond" album of Bryn Terfel, a singer I have heard "live". Here's a guy that treats the English language (and other languages) like F-D treated German. The diction is outstanding. It's what I miss from most opera singers. Of course both voices have superb timbre, legato, etc. Well, better not get started on singers. As you can read, it is a topic that can be discussed ad infinitum.
      I like Shifrin O.K. I saw Stolzman clown his way through the Copland and it ended up biting him back. I don't buy his recordings. Neville Marriner's son sounds quite good. I haven't decided if I like Sabine Meyer yet, but she's a superb player, no doubt about it. For an Eddie Daniel's classical recording I recommend the Brahms and Weber Quintets on Reference Recordings (possibly out-of-print). He studied with clarinet guru, Joe Allard and I think that explains a lot about the wonderful sound Eddie has.
      Now, let's see, this is a planar speaker forum, right? :)
Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response martin 21:56:23 06/02/00 (11)
Maggies are very capable of good bass and planar bass is just as special as the rest of the spectrum. What you need is power. I have mg20's powered by the Classe omega. The bass is awsome . Rock rocks. The smaller maggies will also do bass but the power caveat applies as well
- Perception of Maggie Bass response part II Socrates 09:22:20 06/03/00 (10)
  I appreciate all the thoughtful feedback from those who responded to my post. Everyone had good points but none quite answered my question, probably because I wasn't very clear. I'm a mechanical design engineer by trade, with a lifetime of speaker design as a passion, and I'm familiar with practical application of the scientific method. In referring to my impressions of the difference in bass 'quality', I was not using the term as a value statement or in comparison to some benchmark of "quality". The difference in the sound 'quality' was not do to different sources, a different frequency, different sound pressure levels, different room environment, or differing speaker locations, or microphone placement--these had all been eliminated as variables. There must be another variable which hasn't been isolated yet, i just don't know what it is.
  One of the responders stated that difference may be because Magnepan and electrostatic produce bass sound waves in an entirely differnt manner--this is simply not the case: So-called "sound" is nothing more or less than an individual's brain's perception of pressure waves, both within and outside of the range of humnan hearing (just because its a pressure wave at a frequency outside of the ear's ability to detect it doesn't mean we can't perceive it). ALL loudspeakers make sound by means of a moving element which transfers part of its vibrational energy to the air, so planar drivers are not really fundementally different than any other type of drivers, and don't launch a wave in a fundementally different way. I suspect that everybody reading from this Web Site is quite familiar with the host of differences between the sound of magnepan speakers in comparison to everything else, but these differences are do to the mechanical differences in the design and function of the loudspeakers, not because the operate under a different set of physical laws.
  By the way, I have spoken to some of the design engineers working at Magnepan about my original question regarding the reason for the unmeasured but perceived difference in bass quality--they were familiar with the difference but they had no explantion for it either.
  - Re: maybe the movies here will give you some ideas: Pam 22:53:26 06/04/00 (0)
    Saw there was going to be some panel about vibrational dynamics of ribbed cone and ribbed panel radiators, but don't have any details.
    Anyway, some of the movies here http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos.html might give you some ideas to contemplate about the differences in sound. Anyway, it would seem a piston radiator would be more like a point source in a closed box while a maggie would act more like a dipole (with some different types of rectangular membrane distortion than a circular cone radiator) and would be more like a line source than a point source so the radiation pattern would be different and may not follow the inverse square law for intensity as closely as a point source so internal room reflections would have different patterns of interaction, phasing and instantanious pressure at a given sampling point. It's a thought anyway... personally, I don't really care... I simply like my maggies.
  - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II kevin 11:14:54 06/03/00 (8)
    I've always felt that UNDISTORTED frequencies or notes reproduced under identical anechoic acoustic conditions would have to sound the same no matter what type of speaker reproduced them. Therefore, I think if you have somehow eliminated all other variables as you have stated, a difference in the sound quality would have to come down to a difference in distortion characteristics. In other words, one of the speakers has to be producing the frequency or note with less distortion or a different type of distortion.
    BTW, how have you managed to eliminate the room, the way the speaker launches sound into the room (direct, bipole, dipole etc.)and the resultant interaction, as a possible source of the diffence you are hearing. You aren't listening in an anechoic chamber, are you? If not, and if you have found a way to eliminate these interactions as a source of difference in the sound of speakers, you should run, not walk to a patent office!
    - Listening to distortion BobH 15:02:10 06/08/00 (0)
      Hate, as a scientist, to move away from the data-based discussion here, but:
      As a listener to music, I have been playing with Maggie bass lately. The addition of a REL sub has given me an opportunity to play with the musical side of Maggie bass. I know what a tympani sounds like and it sounds most like an un-aided Maggie. When I add the sub, I get added harmonics that sound very pleasant but unrealistic. Now, I am not talking about "boom". I am using very modest volumes with the REL set at 20-26Hz. The bass produced by a cone woofer includes more harmonics than that of a planar mylar film. Simple.
      So my answer to bass from rock music is to add a subwoofer to reproduce the cone harmonics you like in rock music. If you listen to classical, make sure the sub is set to a very low crossover so you don't interfere with the relatively light amount of sub harmonics of tympani and bass viols.
    - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II Socrates 11:43:00 06/03/00 (6)
      Kevin,
      In answer to your comment about distortion, I essentially agree with you. tecnically speaking anytime you are listening to a reporduction of a sound you only have two things: 1. The original signal and 2. Something other than the origianl signal. By definition, anything which is not part of the original is distortion. My contention is that that difference I'm am ascribing to the Maggie bass is indeed distortion--a distortion unqiue to Maggies. I din't mean to imply you weren't free to enjoy it more than the distortion you hear in Cone drivers.
      In regard to your rhetorical question about doing my testing in an anechoic room--not so fast; the answer is "Yes", I did do the tesing in an anechoic room. I made my basement into an anechoic room; it scored extremely low on the Wife Acceptability Factor but its the only reliable way I know to do such A/B testing.
      By the way before I create too much conflict and develope a reputation as a Maggie Basher, I have been hooked on Maggie sound for more than 20 tears. I have owned MMGs, 3.5s and the newer 1.6 QR's. Incidentally, I think the 1.6 QR's are much better balanced than the 3.6's, and I for me they do a better overall job of creating the illusion of "being there".
      
      question about distortion i
      - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II BFitz 06:05:55 06/07/00 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by Socrates on June 03, 2000 at 11:43:00:
        
        About Maggie bass - it is a true dipole, and if you want some comments from a true pioneer, study the Linkwitz site. He speaks extensively on the way cone/box loudspeakers excite low frequency room resonances, whereas a dipole does not. It may be the low frequency room resonances that we hear, and call "slam".
        BTW, it takes quite a bit of work to get an effective anechoic chamber to work at low frequencies - if you have done so in your basement, my hats off to you.
        Bob
        
        LinkWitz Lab
        
        Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II Dave 21:41:14 06/13/00 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by BFitz on June 07, 2000 at 06:05:55:
        
        In response to your question about getting my basement to behave like an anechoic chanber for bass frequencies. It works well down to about 200 hz, (which is a heck of a lot more objective than what most people have to work with) below 200 hz I just move my speakers outside for testing.
        Dave
      - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II kevin 13:35:38 06/03/00 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by Socrates on June 03, 2000 at 11:43:00:
        
        Never took any of your comments to be "Maggie Bashing". And I'm sorry if my comments were taken as argumentative. In any case, I think you have your answer:distortion. How much distortion and of what type has to be the explanation for the differences you hear, IMHO. I am certainly not going to try to say which is better or which anyone should like. In listening to music, and sound in general, IMHO all that matters is what is pleasing to you.
        Thanks for the discussion.
        
        Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II Socrates 16:13:35 06/04/00 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by kevin on June 03, 2000 at 13:35:38:
        
        Kevin,
        Well said.
      - Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II DrM 13:28:04 06/03/00 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by Socrates on June 03, 2000 at 11:43:00:
        
        > I think the 1.6 QR's are much better balanced than the 3.6's
        I agree, and I own 3.6's. The two driver 1.6 sounds more seamless
        than the three driver 3.6. But the 3.6 kills (don't hurt me Ed ;)
        the 1.6 in with its high and low frequency extension. You can't
        have everything ;)
        -D
        
        Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II Socrates 16:40:29 06/04/00 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Perception of Maggie Bass response part II posted by DrM on June 03, 2000 at 13:28:04:
        
        DrM,
        I agree with your comparison between the 1.6's and 3.6's.
        In regard to the Bass:
        The 3.6's are much larger, so it has the triple advantages of a larger surface area bass driver (which lowers the required excursion and the distortion) larger panel size (which increases bass by moving the panel's phase cancellation to a lower frequency), and the benefit of substatially imcreased mass (a standard technique for improving bass)
        In regard to the the highs:
        The true ribbon design of the tweeter is perhaps the finest on the planet. Its somewhat fragile and needs the fuse it comes with.
        In regard to the inferior balance of the 3.6's in comparison to the 1.6's:
        The 1.6's use a simple 2-way crossover, which is a nearly ideal situation. For a multitude of reasons, 3-way or more complex crossover networks simply don't work as well as 2-way designs. And thus its far more difficult to seamlessly integrate the drivers. Unfortunately, 2 way designs just can give enough frequency coverage to cover all 10 octaves well.
        Perhaps more important is that the ribbons and planar magnetic tweeter (so-called quasi-ribbion)panels differ significanlty in design and construction. In addition, the radiation pattern of the ribbon is nearly 360 instead of the bipoalr 180 degree radiation of the other panels, so it can only be "kinda" balanced depending on where you set in relation to the speakers (its analogeous to the problems of integratin a cone subwoofer which rolls off a 6 db per metter with an electrostatic panels which rolls off at 3db per meter) its only balabced at one listening spot.
        Wish I could afford the 3.6's :-)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.