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: Here you go posted by Davey on May 19, 2017 at 08:37:37
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 . . .
Follow Ups:
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: