Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
32.212.76.154
In Reply to: RE: Magnepan announces its demo at the LA Audio Show posted by Davey on May 19, 2017 at 07:14:47
I know that Wendell has experimented with stacked MMG's in the past. I think that his goal here is an interesting demonstration, rather than a commercially practical configuration. Floor-ceiling line sources are ideal, but their wife acceptance factor is zip . . .
Follow Ups:
I asked Wendell at the show what he was powering the 5 .7s (a pair of stacked .7s on either said and a single .7 in the center) with and he said that he was running a 500 watt Bryston amp to each of the .7s for a total of 2500 watts of power.
I believe that's about $25k worth of power amps!
or next up model 28b
Edits: 06/08/17
BTW, what was your impression of the demonstration? I would have loved to hear it -- there's a bit difference between knowing the theory of something and actually hearing what it does to the sound.
Impressive! Of course, you can't skimp on power in a large room with an audience . . . or in Satie's listening room. :-)
I had 2+2s when I married and thirty years later wifey has no difficulty living with (somewhat smaller) monoliths in what is primarily her HT. :)
That's the trick -- train them when they're young! :-)
Wife has not blinked over my purchase of maggies in 30 years.
Owned MG1 when married and eventually 'upgraded'.
When she watches her trash TV (any singing reality show) I half expect the neighbors to either bring over some refreshments or burn my house down around me.
whether she knows it or not, she's now accustomed to better sound.
Too much is never enough
Well that's a good arrangement. Get them hooked . . .
I'd rather have a stacked wife.
An extended version of my MMG framing project would be an excellent way to implement the stacked approach. There would be just a couple of inches between transducers in the middle, but that would be acoustically transparent.
The wife acceptance factor is near zip on all these speakers. If the wife doesn't like it, I say trade her in for a more practical configuration spouse. :)
Dave.
LOL
I think the question is whether, assuming you've suitably modified your wife, it would be worth it to stack MMG's, or whether it wouldn't make more sense to get a pair of .7's or 1.7's instead, since they have their own advantages like QR drivers and the supertweeter . . .
I still like the concept of stacked MMG's. More radiating area (for increased SPL) than either 0.7 or 1.x models, and they are closer in concept to the idealized floor/ceiling line source. And, as noted, two pairs of MMG's are less than either of those systems. Yes, a user needs to perform some work to construct the system, but I don't include that into the value computation.
The super tweeter of the later models is just a marketing gimmick.
Dave.
Definitely not a marketing gimmick -- they conducted a blind AB test with a listening panel before Mark Winey agreed to add it to the 1.7.
As I see it, the MMG's tweeter is too wide for optimal dispersion and power response -- it beams and there are side lobes. Also, the super tweeter segment has lower mass than the entire tweeter.
The question for me is whether the better power response and higher output of a floor-ceiling MMG provides more sonic benefits than the quasi ribbons, supertweeter, and heavier frame. There are other differences as well, e.g., the .7 and 1.7 have more bass extension. But on the other hand, with the shorter models the sound seems to be coming from too low -- I'd expect stacked MMG's to have better imaging, just as MMG's do when you raise them up and orient them vertically (losing bass in the process).
Sorry Josh. An inside joke there that you missed. :)
Yes, you are correct it's not a marketing gimmick and there are definite technical advantages to the super-tweeter approach.
The bass extension thing can be addressed with equalization. This would be another advantage when using the stacked MMG approach since pairs of transducers would provide the extra headroom to be extended lower with this configuration. Stacking MMG's checks a lot of boxes.
Dave.
Oops. I'm chagrined but also relieved, since that seemed so, shall we say, not like you. :-)
So are you going to do it? Stack MMG's, that is. Wendell would be a great source on this, since I know he's tried it and said it sounds really good.
See the "What is a Super Tweeter?" section.
http://www.indiespinzone.com/mag/mag1.7.html
Yet another example of the cluelessness of Peter Gunn. He doesn't even understand the concept and result of narrowing the tweeter in this way.
I will put the "stacked MMG" project on my to-do list.
Dave.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: