Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Very well -- I have not heard the Scaenas or Nolas, but . . . posted by goldenthal on January 28, 2017 at 19:45:40
HP heard the same phenomenon on their model 20, allegedly lessened in the 20.1.
Allegedly? I cannot speak to the 20R having never heard it, but I can regarding the 20.1s I heard multiple times in multiple systems at Sea Cliff. Instead of conjecture, why not actually read what has been written by him and others?
Valin reviewed the 20R here and mentioned a number of things that HP did say about them at the time. More recently, I also heard the 3.7 at Sea Cliff during a visit by Hobson. As one who highly values coherency, my primary concern with the 20.1 was that it sounded like a multi-way speaker and lacked coherence. The 3.7 (and presumably the 20.7 which Warren Gehl at Audio Research uses for evaluation) are better in that respect. Read HP's commentary here.
There is mention of improved response from the current ribbon where HP thought perhaps the range was different. Diller indicated there were refinements, but not to the crossover point. You're welcome to disagree.
From personal experience, I differ with your assessment that "The speakers I've heard using ribbons like Magneplanars, Scaenas and Nolas don't seem to make such sophomoric mistakes . . . ." The Tympany IVa, to my ears, certainly did, but I acknowledge that what you've written allows for the possibility that you never heard those. It is possible that some might describe the phenomenon I heard as "discontinuity" or "lack of coherence" or "disconnectedness between mids and treble". I suspect that the sound I heard might be due to what Doug Schneider describes.
If I have mischaracterized, from old & vague memory, the views of HP or any of his cronies regarding subsequent Maggies, well excuuuuse me.
The Tympany IVa, to my ears, certainly did, but I acknowledge that what you've written allows for the possibility that you never heard those.
Have not. I've heard a range of Maggies over the past forty odd years including the Tympani 1U, Tympani IIIa, MG-II, MG-III, 1.6, 3.6, 20.1, 1.7 and 3.7, but my comments were primarily aimed at current production, aka ".7s".
It is possible that some might describe the phenomenon I heard as "discontinuity" or "lack of coherence" or "disconnectedness between mids and treble"
Perhaps. While Harry made that comment about the 20.1s fifteen years ago, that was not the case with the 3.7 even from six years ago. I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided to that review.
" In saying it doesn't sound like its ancestors, I mean to suggest, before going into detail that the 3.7s do not sound at all discontinuous as they have in the past , but rather as if cut from a whole cloth. Before this (and perhaps the same with the 1.7, which I haven't heard), the perceptive listener could hear the differences between the ribbon tweeter, the midrange, and the separate bass planar elements, and these differences were audible not only as difference in rise time, but also as a kind of characteristic texture. "
And yet, they still use ribbons. I'm thinking that other speaker design considerations are responsible, not the inherent driver type. I'm not a ribbon apologist having never owned one, but I've heard wonderfully natural top end with great extension more than one loudspeaker employing them. I still find full range electrostats most coherent, but could easily live with 3.7s cum subs or 20.7s. I could not honestly say that about earlier models.
You're absolutely correct that I don't refer to 1985 models like the T-IV.
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: