Planar Speaker Asylum

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

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version

108.245.106.95

Posted on December 14, 2019 at 18:52:56
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
First off much thanks to our host Quintessence Audio of Morton Grove IL, they were very nice and put out a great spread of food and drinks. Their rooms are much more acoustically treated the last time I was there four years ago which I appreciated.

I would like to tell my story by repeating something by starting at the end of the evening, the demo was done and we wore over our time by half an hour. When a nice young man showed up, he had just gotten off late from work. He pleaded his case to Wendell to hear just one jazz song, that he had bought from the store before and they should cut him slack. He was desperate to hear just what the speakers sounded like.

Wendell graciously picked a jazz song from his own collection, I cannot remember what it was or if I even liked it. However the young man immediately picked up on the 30.7 for Condo's overall sound. By saying "it was best sounding Magnepan he had ever heard" I got to talk to him a little bit after said jazz song. I don't know how many Maggies he had heard before or even what speakers had.

He didn't seem to be familiar with the online forums for Maggie fans, which Wendell and I tried to tell him about. He also had questions about the audiophile market and how the midfi market is shrinking. and going either to soundbars for the low end or uber expensive for the high end. He had heard some of Wendell's thoughts on this and wanted to know more about it.

The reason I told that story was I agreed with him, that I too thought that was the best Maggie I had ever heard. Now some people might say that is hyperbole, because the room wasn't perfect, I didn't spend that much time with them or only played one track of my own music (Outlands from Tron Legacy), tweets were on the outside ;> etc...

Let's cut to the quick, everyone knows the limitations of Maggies. The Big Four, with various degrees of problems depending on the model of Magnepan. Ability to play loud, lack of dynamics, and lack of deep bass and bass impact. Why do I need a comparison of a side by side with 3.7, I've heard 3.7's 20.7's and 30.7's all before in various rooms. Regarding the Four things I mentioned the 30.7s for Condo's blew them all away, and not by a little bit but by a good margin.

That was not the room that made caused me to have the jump factor in one of Wendell's music tracks, or the deep bass and impact I heard from his Japanese drum track.




 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 19:23:27
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since:
June 17, 2003
thanks for sharing your experience! Question: can you tell which amp(s) were used and were photos strictly forbidden?









 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 19:42:19
timm
Audiophile

Posts: 778
Location: Ann Arbor Mi
Joined: January 15, 2008
Couple questions too Troy. Did the bass still have that planar quality and how was the the overall presentation from highs down to the lowest lows? Did they have that Maggie purity , tonality, and realism we love ? Listening to my 20.7 right now and they are just so even keeled across the entire audio spectrum.

Also - was their DSP and were the bass units powered internally?

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 19:44:06
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
Perhaps the 30.7 or some other model in the Maggie will beat out the 30.7 for Condo version, in some area such as purity of the midrange or some such thing. That's not what I came to hear, I came to hear a speaker that would match or better the 30.7 in the bass in a smaller form factor. Which is just what I heard and was really glad I came to hear it.

When I standing in the lobby waiting to get in an older man (like me 57) told me he was not that impressed with the sound of the 30.7 when he heard it at Audio Solutions, thought it sounded too close to the 20.1s. I agreed, for me the 30.7s had a lack of bass impact. Which Maggie's have never been know for, but I have got used to in my now primary speaker JBL 4367's. I found the Condo version did have the dynamics and bass impact I was looking for so bravo, Wendell.

Regarding the looks of the Maggie's I like Biserko's Sonus Faber looking mod, classy with some subdued bling. I don't how far you can take the Maggies toward industrial design, there is the limitation of it being a tall slender panel. So you can't go too outside the rectangle.

Regarding the music played for the demo, Wendell said he was trying to show off the bass capability the speaker with his music selection. Someone called it "audiophile crap" haha. I agreed with another listener who said that stuff is fine for some of the demo, but you also have to realize that's not what people are going to listen to at home.

They want to hear how the music they know and are familiar with sounds on this system. I picked a song from my collection that had a lot of deep bass, to combine Wendells idea and the consumer's point of view.

Which reminds me I asked one of the salesman in the lobby what does he say to people who ask, what is the difference between the different brands of speakers they carry. He mentioned Sonus Faber having a warm sound, Wilson Audio being more rock and roll. Due to it's having a lot of bass and ability to play loud, while Dynaudio has a more neutral sound. Which I pretty much agreed with him on.

I definitely am more a fan of the neutral sound, the speaker that differentiate's it's sound over a wider selection of music. While imposing less of it's coloration's is the kind of speaker I like, plus the ability to sound like it is more like live music. Is the speaker I want to buy, of course all the other usual audiophile qualities mixed in their too. We talked about this in the room with Wendell too at one point.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 19:58:58
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
Timm, I felt no loss of planer purity in bass, bass was excessive when electronic bass was playing. I attribute that to the the room, seemed fine to me when playing acoustic music. If the planer bass was not up to par I wouldn't nearly be as enthusiastic this speaker.

The rest of the spectrum of music beyond the bass, I can't really say a lot about. That wasn't really Wendell's purpose, time limits questions and answers with Wendell and the participants. My limit was just trying to get in the freaking room itself. I didn't really see anybody come out, door closed I was just waiting finally I just decided to bust on in there.

I will say this about the Overall Sound, hey it's a Maggie using mostly the same planer quasi ribbon/True Ribbon tweeter technology as in other Maggies. So it automatically has The Maggie Sound, no changes there.

Regarding the amps, the Double Dipole bass has a D Class amp I believe a 1k watt, I think. While the midrange and tweeter used the the Maggie Amp from AXPONA 300w at 4 ohms, I think.

The Double Double was all covered in black sock, it looked like a 3ft tall triangle. Maybe 5" across. I have pics, just to figure out how to post on this forum using a Mac or my iPhone 10.

I was impressed with the 30.7 for Condo's as I was for the LRS, just in different ways. Think Magical, Mystical Maggie Bass, all positive's in my book.

Ok, one negative one customer in the lobby said he told Wendell the mid/tweet unit was too tall for his wife to put up with. I see his point but, I worry making it smaller would limit how loud it could go.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:24:59
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



Let's see

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:29:29
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:31:20
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



Black Triangle

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:34:56
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



More

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:37:36
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
whoops

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:45:41
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



Whoop's, I would guess 14"wide, 2"deep,5'10 high

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:55:03
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



More

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:57:13
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006



More

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 20:59:27
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
More

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 14, 2019 at 21:01:28
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
More

 

well I know these trials aren't for naming the product -but that ain't no where near a 30.7, posted on December 14, 2019 at 21:05:19
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since:
June 17, 2003
Well even if the mid/tweet panel are identical to 30.7's, is it even accurate to associate them with a true 30.7's which have the 'pure' quasi ribbon bass panels?

Putting all that aside it still looks promising although I think if they're designed for constricted spaces a panel 1/2 that size on a raised stand (ie support pole) would fare better among consumers,that way you could place them behind a couch/love seat, etc...but then again -wth do I know..

Anyway that's my unsolicited take. It'll be interesting how these will be priced, I mean they appear to be roughly 1/3rd the size/foot print of a 30.7 so...











 

Thanks, posted on December 14, 2019 at 21:22:01
emailtim
Audiophile

Posts: 5323
Joined: July 2, 2017
Thanks for the demo report.
.

2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED

 

RE: well I know these trials aren't for naming the product -but that ain't no where near a 30.7, posted on December 14, 2019 at 21:26:22
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
I have to say my first impression is that even if money and space/room were not a factor, I would probably pick these over 30.7's. Considering this is only a prototype, and the limitations of the room, Wendell not having time to dial in the DSP, I assume the finished product would be even better.

Regarding pricing, with the trend to marketing to the more well off. I was thinking maybe priced between 20.7's and 30.7s so how about $20k. If you priced at $10k since it's 1/3 smaller, that's undercutting the 20.7 by a good chunk of change.

But what do I know, I'm only an airport screener, Officer for the TSA.

 

RE: well I know these trials aren't for naming the product -but that ain't no where near a 30.7, posted on December 14, 2019 at 21:37:41
timm
Audiophile

Posts: 778
Location: Ann Arbor Mi
Joined: January 15, 2008
Very nice Troy. Thanks!! Tim

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 15, 2019 at 10:11:27
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
That last is a dilemma. The ideal line source is floor to ceiling, but appearance makes that impractical. So, a compromise. I imagine that if this takes off and they use the technology in more economical models there will be shorter versions. But they wanted to start with the flagship model and move from there.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 15, 2019 at 10:17:18
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
Great writeup, thanks.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 15, 2019 at 10:45:36
Utley1
Audiophile

Posts: 1609
Location: NYC
Joined: July 30, 2010
Design wise a tetrahedron might work made of carbon fiber it would look very sculptural, glaze like,and past minimalist industrial designs of MAgnenpan(which I love). Forms are easily malleable , light and strong and color adaptable.Placed on a 'marble or carbon plinth'
it's presentation would be dramatic and work with any modern design capturing niche among the young and well to do in NYC etc. Tetrahedron forms are primal and excite visual imagination, that would wolrk well with the layered sounds of the maggies. Just my 2 cents

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 15, 2019 at 12:35:29
Reedo
Audiophile

Posts: 12
Location: Florida
Joined: October 12, 2017
Do the rules for placement stand with the "condo" panels? Is there and more flexibility since the bass modules are no longer part of the panels? If there's no difference, then what's the realized advantage? It's not really the size of the speaker. It's the real estate needed for placement. Granted, they are much smaller but if decor acceptability is an issue, they're still way out from the front wall. The true believers will place the speakers where they need to be, but I'm not sure a panel that still sits 5' in the room will change the minds of folks who aren't sure of Maggies based on how they look. As someone who uses a REL sub with MMGs I have no qualms about the concept and would love to hear them.

 

The Big Four, posted on December 15, 2019 at 13:04:31
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
These are only problems if one allows inherent design issues to dictate the final result. Compromise to achieve a more satisfying musical experience factors into buying any speaker system. A lot of it comes down to available space and budget.

Why would one choose to spend "XXX" to achieve "N" when you can achieve similar or better results by just spending "X" for less pricy version of the speaker system that includes amp "S" with subwoofer ""H", speaker stand "M" choosing room "Y" as a listening room, etc. Leaving out room treatments and front end gear the "N" goal (nirvana) is just as accessible.

I've heard the big four through my Maggie system done better than any other speaker system, and not just on selected jazz, chamber music and female vocalists (not that all of these don't sound remarkable too).

Full disclosure, my listening preferences include dynamic rock and orchestral. I wouldn't be happy with a speaker system that failed to satisfy my tastes in music. I enjoy deep bass, and while it's true Maggies don't do deep bass well, that part of the octave spectrum can easily be achieved throu integrating the right subwoofer (coordinated with room size and node treatments where desired).

With 3.7i model Maggies, care in selection of associated gear, trial & error listening room adjustments, etc., I've written off all four of the arguable limitations Maggie critics usually point out ...loudness, dynamics, deep bass and bass impact.

There is a point to all this, BTW. How much does a music lover really need to spend to achieve their musical goals. Forgetting everything else ...including space considerations which are a reasonable concern for placing any speaker system... the bottom line really comes down to value and affordability.

Undoubtably the New entry level Maggies are a bargain even given their own limitations, but where is the price point for a speaker line being promoted as "30.7 for Condos?" And what kind of associated gear will be needed to attain the rich level of satisfaction desired?

My Maggies ended up being about 1/4 of my total investment, all well spent with satisfying results. I'm just curious, if that ratio holds true for this new demo system line, what will the final price tag be when balanced against Magnepan's other fine speaker lines? What's next, ...Time Share Gear to go with 30.7 for Condos?

What I'm reading is that under carefully set-up conditions, these new speakers sound remarkable. I'm not trying to throw cold water on that or suggest that this is just hyperbole, but it would be nice to have some idea of what baseline cost is suggested to achieve this level of quality. How does this compare with trying to build a satisfying system with other well established models and the gear and room treatment related fixes for inherent weaknesses?

Hopefully my musings here won't tick off folks who are enthusiastic about this new demo entry in Maggies fine line of speakers. I'm just curious if other Magneplanar owners are the least bit dubious of the claims given their own experiences.

AuPh

 

What was the XO point ?, posted on December 15, 2019 at 13:26:09
emailtim
Audiophile

Posts: 5323
Joined: July 2, 2017
@TitaniumTroy,

Do you know what the XO point was for the bass panels ???

TIA
.

2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED

 

RE: The Big Four, posted on December 15, 2019 at 18:44:40
timm
Audiophile

Posts: 778
Location: Ann Arbor Mi
Joined: January 15, 2008
About the money... right. I don't think anyone should expect a dollar figure... but more of 'where is its proposed fit in the lineup?' It could be between 1.7 /3.7 or 3.7/20.7 or 20.7/30.7

I like that magnepan is being innovative and pushing the envelope a bit. They have had 3 new products come out ... in the last 1-2 years? Maybe I'm off there. But really the 30.7/LRS / and now this are some varying offerings - I think - that is kind of exciting. Plus this new innovation could spawn off a stand alone sub w dsp. That's pretty fancy I think. :)

 

RE: The Big Four, posted on December 15, 2019 at 19:34:45
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
Well it's always a good idea to be somewhat skeptical, just so your not drinking someone else's KooLAid. A shootout between a 3.7i with properly integrated (dipole or monopole?) subwoofers would be interesting. Definitely seems it would be more cost effective, sound wise which would win I would leave that to Davey, Josh or Wendell to answer.

Regarding the crossover, Wendell says that is related to the patent/secret sauce. In the past didn't Wendell say the problems in bass and size came in around the 200hz range?

I happened to be browsing thru Best Buy tonight I heard some truly bad, one note bass. Via a Bose soundbar and bass module. It sounded like it was playing some low level bass from a movie soundtrack. Probably wasn't even set up right but still pretty bad. All the sound bars at my local BB are really thin, guess you have go to a Magnolia store to hear a decent sized one.

 

If it's that good, seems like big Maggie days are numbered., posted on December 15, 2019 at 19:42:51
Tromatic
Audiophile

Posts: 2759
Location: Portland
Joined: July 27, 2000
If this succeeds and is that good, why continue to produce the 30.7?

 

Size is a poor method of judging..., posted on December 15, 2019 at 19:46:12
Tromatic
Audiophile

Posts: 2759
Location: Portland
Joined: July 27, 2000
The first problem was "Bose", though.

 

The price was hinted at in that ad, IIRC....., posted on December 15, 2019 at 19:47:36
Tromatic
Audiophile

Posts: 2759
Location: Portland
Joined: July 27, 2000
They are not going to be cheap.

 

RE: well I know these trials aren't for naming the product -but that ain't no where near a 30.7, posted on December 15, 2019 at 20:09:28
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
Considering that it is essentially all the components of a 30.7 and a DSP and I assume an amp, then it is likely to cost about the same as a 30.7.

In the demo of the 30.7 I only had a short chance to lift playback levels a bit and get a feel for its bass dynamics and extension capacity and it was great even in a not quite treated room. But that was with an 800 W/ch at 4 ohm amp. Not what most of the demos provided, which surprised me as maggie dealers should be prepared with a sufficiently high power high current amp. I am certain that the 30.7 bass experience I had was not reproduced with those lower powered amps.

I am assuming that 8 6.5 inch long throw woofers would be able to produce the same SPL with much less power, which is probably why bass performance seemed better and punchier than the 30.7 demo.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 16, 2019 at 03:37:00
BDP24
Audiophile

Posts: 1070
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Joined: September 12, 2013
Well, seeing the woofer tower tells me a coupla things. It's triangular baffle construction indicates it's no normal OB/Dipole sub, and doubts coming from some quarters about patent issues may be proven to be mistaken ;-) . Veddy interesting!

 

Schroeder Frequency?, posted on December 16, 2019 at 06:58:55
MarcL
Audiophile

Posts: 420
Location: PA
Joined: February 26, 2019
The Schroeder (transition) frequency of most rooms is around 150 to 250Hz. You mention Wendell referencing 200Hz. Does it make sense that the problems to be mitigated with dipole woofers relate to how they engage room modes below the transition frequency less than conventional speakers. Does this sound reasonable?


Agilist, Musician, Photographer, Audiophile
Magneplanar: 3.7, CCR, MC1,LRS, MMGW, DWM; Outlaw: UltraX12, LFM-1C; Emotiva: XMC-2; Nord: Nord One NC500DM, Nord Three 1ET7040SA; Outlaw: Model 7500; OPPO 205

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 16, 2019 at 07:16:42
OB woofer drivers mounted 90 degrees orthogonal is something you haven't seen before?
Anyways, with the cloth covering the setup, we still can't deduce much about the exact configuration, so it's still speculative.

Legal patent issues aside, we still haven't seen anything technically innovative here. That's the only aspect I'm interested in. I couldn't care less what some lawyer thinks of the project.

Dave.

 

RE: The Big Four, posted on December 16, 2019 at 09:55:14
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since:
June 17, 2003
well if this product turns out to be a bonified 'hit' down the road I can see these slowly and quietly taking over the entire top and mid tier line of Maggies. Dress it up with nice wood trimming, it definitely would be more waf (sort of), easier to move around, ship etc.,.









 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 16, 2019 at 13:31:50
BDP24
Audiophile

Posts: 1070
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Joined: September 12, 2013
Dave, by 90 degrees orthogonal do you mean as dual woofers are mounted in a W (some call it M) OB frame, as Linkwitz did in his 521 loudspeaker? If so, yes, of course. Do you see evidence of 90 degree orthogonality in the prototype Magnepan OB as seen in the pics?

 

That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 16, 2019 at 14:05:04
Audiophilander
Audiophile

Posts: 30200
Location: Fort Worth (D/FW Metroplex)
Joined: March 31, 2000
Since all current and future Maggie owners have skin in this game, I'd wager this just ain't gonna happen.

Any company that has built it's reputation ...and a loyal customer base... over 50 years should view "quiet" abandonment of it's design principle as a non-starter. . This could easily end up a bonafide boner rather than a bonafide hit if this all goes south. Wendell is wise to keep these things close to the vest.

While I'm sure any new Magnepan design demos will be greeted with guarded enthusiasm and curiosity, it's the original vision of music emanating from a regal Kubrick-esque obelisk that gripped the imagination of music fans in the 60's and continues to breathe life into Magnepan today. Bass limitations notwithstanding, folks love Maggie's for their unique musical imaging and design, not in spite of it.

There's no way to pitch WAF as the number one selling point for rolling out "improved" Magnepan product without concerns over compromising the speaker design's appeal to it's core audience.

Wendell might as well promote the new design as "30.7 for Marie Kondo" if the idea is reducing Maggie's footprint, ...but Maggie's bigger than Marie. If they go toe to toe, my money's on Maggie! She toes-in better without yielding ground or pulling any punches. ;0)

Cheers,
AuPh

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 16, 2019 at 15:27:27
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
You can place the speakers close to the sidewalls, it should be ok. if you have first reflection problems then you can apply some treatment to the wall at that point.

The location of the woofer section should be easy because of the DSP that should be able to do time alignment and EQ.

This design should make unobtrusive placement easier.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 16, 2019 at 19:09:39
timm
Audiophile

Posts: 778
Location: Ann Arbor Mi
Joined: January 15, 2008
I agree with what you say AudioP. However,if we tap the brakes a bit on WAF - and think about old guys downsizing their houses - this gives them a viable option and possibly expands Maggie's market. Also with people with smaller digs all together. You take that plus the upside of retailers having the ability to put them on display and make them sound good in their environment - it feels like an added product to the line that helps get more sales out of existing customers and new. Plus if the bass is a modular stand alone product - I think that could also be a real winner.

I absolutely love the old Maggie's. But I've never heard these and don't view myself as part of the target market.

Re WAF. I don't know about you guys - but my toughest WAF sell would be a 20k price tag - not the looks.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 17, 2019 at 06:31:13
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
The problem, simply put, is that sales of large speakers of every kind have been dropping for years. That's why you're seeing all those narrow things -- they can fit between the sofa and the cat.

And Magnepan's speakers are among the largest of the large.

Given current trends, large speakers soon won't sell in sufficient quantity to sustain a factory the size of Magnepan's. That would mean downsizing, and that in turn would mean losing economy of scale and the ability to make speakers at this price point.

So they have to pay attention to the market, and half the time what comes up is "this may have been OK for Dave Bowman, but my wife won't go for speakers the size of a barn door."

So they have to have a wife-friendly Maggie to satisfy the needs of the "conflicted couple."

That doesn't mean they'll stop selling pure planars. As Wendell says, those will always offer the most bang for the buck -- it's less expensive to add more mylar and magnets than it is to add multiple drivers, a separate baffle with cosmetic treatment, a high-powered amplifier, and DSP.

But the planars alone can no longer support the factory.

Besides that, the woofer is designed to be small and easy to hide.

One thing they weren't going to do -- sell a speaker that didn't sound like planar bass. They spent something like two years developing a woofer system that sounded as good as (some say better than) the 30.7.

Really, I've had planars now for something like 40 years, and I wouldn't mind these. I have a separate sound room so I don't have to worry about WAF, but even for me, fitting big planars in a small room is a bit of a stretch!

Anyway, I think one of the purposes of the tour is to convince audiophiles, dealers, and the press that it's possible to produce the sound of planar bass in a small form factor (some people have already done it with the GR Research OB dipoles, but they're really big, so a hard sell from a WAF perspective).

 

Asian market, posted on December 17, 2019 at 11:44:42
DrChaos
Audiophile

Posts: 2063
Location: San Diego
Joined: July 13, 2009
Wealthy Asians live in high rise security apartments.

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 17, 2019 at 12:05:53
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
To add a possibility to Satie's, you could put them against the wall at an angle, like the on-walls. That would boost the midbass, but you could correct it with the DSP.

Otherwise, sure, there's more flexibility in placement since you don't have to worry about tuning in the bass. So it's just about imaging.

 

RE: If it's that good, seems like big Maggie days are numbered., posted on December 17, 2019 at 12:15:14
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
Well, for one thing, this is a Maggie for smaller rooms. I don't know that it can match the output of the 30.7's in a big one. (Of course, you could always stack woofers . . .)

For another, it will be more expensive than comparable planars because an amplifier, DSP, and dynamic woofers are more expensive than mylar and magnets. Though at $30,000, I'm not sure that an extra thousand bucks makes a difference . . .

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 17, 2019 at 12:15:20
Roger Gustavsson
Audiophile

Posts: 2051
Location: Huskvarna
Joined: February 12, 2010
The large Tympanis never sold in large numbers, not even during the good years of hifi, 30-40 years ago. I have not seen any numbers on the 20-series but they have been in production for 27 years by now.

 

RE: Schroeder Frequency?, posted on December 17, 2019 at 12:30:01
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
It is absolutely reasonable! The dipole null means that dipoles don't excite the lateral or vertical bass modes, so all you have are the z-axis mode and the oblique modes. This is the primary reason that dipole bass sounds so realistic and why it can be worthwhile to make the compromises that it requires (more drivers and power, as well as the need for dipole equalization, compared to sealed or ported speakers).

A loudspeaker designer I know says that in his experiments, multiple monopole subs can equal the quality of dipole subs -- that's a known technique for reducing room modes.

Another technique that can work is to use nearfield subs -- the response is flatter when they're right behind your listening seat, although the dipole still beats out the monopole. Here's a cool web page with measurements of the four configurations (but not the four woofer solution, which has been documented elsewhere):

 

RE: 30.7 For Condo's at Quintessence Audio in Chicago: TitaniumTroy version, posted on December 17, 2019 at 14:15:36
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
According to Wendell, the smaller (and cheaper) the speaker, the more it sells. Which makes sense.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 17, 2019 at 16:30:29
jrdoe
Audiophile

Posts: 114
Joined: April 14, 2015
W vs H dipole configuration? What's the reason/positives/negatives of each? Do you know? THank you.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 17, 2019 at 16:34:28
jrdoe
Audiophile

Posts: 114
Joined: April 14, 2015
Or what about infinite baffle vs dipole? Sound quality improvement? Thanks again.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 17, 2019 at 17:21:15
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
Well, to begin with, all loudspeaker drivers are dipoles -- which is to say that as they push air forwards in front, they pull it in in back, so the frontwave and the backwave are 180 degrees out of phase. And when two waves are 180 degrees out of phase, they cancel, producing no sound! Which is why baffles and enclosures were invented in the first place.

If you mount a driver on the front of a box, you have a monopole rather than a dipole, because the backwave is trapped within the box, where, hopefully, it stays.

But suppose you mounted a driver in a flat baffle, a flat piece of wood, say, without any kind of box? Then you would still have a dipole, with the front and backwaves out of phase, but it would take some time for the waves to make their way around the baffle at the speed of sound. This means that phase cancellation would be less complete. You would start to hear the front wave in front, the back wave in between -- and in the plane of the baffle, nothing at all, because the waves would cancel. That's what we normally refer to as a dipole -- actually, a dipole mounted in a baffle of finite size -- 2' x 6', say. Maggies and other planar speakers are generally of this type.

OK, so if you keep exteninding that flat baffle forever, you get an infinite baffle. No sound can ever leak from front to back. In front, you'll always hear the frontwave, and in back, you'll always hear the backwave, and there's no cancellation in the plane of the baffle because the baffle has no edge. On either side of the infinite baffle, the speaker acts like a monopole.

In practice, we can't make infinite planes, or fit them in our houses, anyway. So when we talk about an infinite baffle speaker, we're usually talking about something like a speaker mounted in a wall, so that the front side radiates into one room and the rear side radiates into the other. The front wave and back wave can't mix, so it acts a lot like a genuine infinite baffle.

Technically, this kind of infinite baffle is just a big box, as in the first example. But because the room in which the backwave radiates is so big, the driver doesn't interact with it as it would with a box.

Another example of something that's called an infinite baffle is a woofer mounted in a car with nothing behind it, so it's free to annoy the neighbors. This can be thought of as another box, except it's the listener that's in the box!

In practice, infinite baffle designs are used for woofers, while finite baffle and enclosed designs are used for all frequencies -- though there's no reason why an infinite baffle couldn't cover all frequencies too. There just usually isn't an advantage in doing so.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 18, 2019 at 11:41:41
jrdoe
Audiophile

Posts: 114
Joined: April 14, 2015
Thanks for the great description. So it would seem that the infinite baffle would be the best of the bunch. I wonder how much difference placement would matter in this case? I have a room with the potential to add an infinite baffle sub, but it would be located behind the listening position... thoughts? Thanks again.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 19, 2019 at 15:55:49
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
Infinite baffle is great, if you don't mind blasting bass into the room behind it! I could do it because I have a wall that leads to the stairs to the attic. Another consideration is that it's a custom job, you need some carpentry skills and if you ever move (or move your system) you'll have to pull out the drivers and plate amp and patch everything up again. But if you do want to do it you should be able to find plans online, the GR Research dipole woofers should do the job -- they're designed to work in free air -- but make sure they know what you're doing when you get the plate amp because you don't want dipole equalization for an infinite baffle.

That said, there are some other issues as well. The main advantage of a dipole woofer is that it interacts less with room modes and an infinite baffle design doesn't have that advantage. Acoustically, it's like a monopole woofer that's up against the wall. So you'll get the most *output* from an infinite baffle woofer, but the *smoothest response* from a dipole woofer, with a conventional box somewhere in between.

Another consideration is that four box subwoofers can give you smooth response, just as a dipole can, but with more output. (Gets expensive, though -- TANSTAAFL!)

One really nice approach I think is to do nearfield bass, that is, put the subs right behind your listening position. They don't have to be infinite baffles then -- dipoles are ideal but monopole work well there as well. You'll get a lot more bass at your ears, it will be smoother, and you'll disturb the neighbors less. I think it's what I would do if I were installing a sub -- but again, it may not work for everybody, it's best for one or two people sitting in the sweet spot, it isn't going to be as good if you're walking around the room.

 

RE: If it's that good, seems like big Maggie days are numbered., posted on December 19, 2019 at 17:46:05
"If this succeeds and is that good, why continue to produce the 30.7?"

Wendell made mention of a good reason but did not elaborate on it, nor did he say how his "prototype concept" succeeds in delivering the goods.
His own two words: "wave launch".

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 20, 2019 at 09:32:23
jrdoe
Audiophile

Posts: 114
Joined: April 14, 2015
Hmmm. I think you killed my plans for an infinite baffle. Doesn't seem that it would be an improvement, just a lot of work (which would be fun, but why bother?). Thanks again.

 

RE: If it's that good, seems like big Maggie days are numbered., posted on December 20, 2019 at 20:43:43
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
As Josh said, it is great for the intended smaller room with closer listening distance. The Barn Door original version bass panel can output more and perform well WITHOUT DSP, and without an extra amp. It should be more cost effective.

You can look at Vandersteen, another value oriented perfectionist audiophile speaker maker. They use an integrated subwoofer with its own amplifier. Their top end flagship speaker, clocking in at $64K in the Model 7 mkII.

Next step down with smaller drivers and less powerful amp is the Kento. at $38K, it is the substitute for the venerable model 5, that did not have a powered bass section.

 

RE: That would be the very definition of a hostile takeover., posted on December 21, 2019 at 09:34:43
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
No problem. Though not more work than another approach, and it probably will give you *more* bass than anything, though not necessarily the best!

 

RE: Schroeder Frequency?, posted on December 23, 2019 at 07:02:33
mmlrot1
Audiophile

Posts: 99
Joined: June 10, 2011
Josh, does this dipole sub provide low frequency ambience, like I get with
the Tympani 4 bass panels (placed 10 feet out from the walls)?
With my Tympani bass panels along with the Martin Logan Summits (of course, both
dipoles) ambience is wonderful.
Thanks, Rotary Guy

 

RE: Schroeder Frequency?, posted on December 23, 2019 at 16:45:45
josh358
Industry Professional

Posts: 12327
Joined: February 9, 2010
Interesting question. The woofers have a similar response to the larger Maggies. Subjectively, the imaging was as good as it gets and better -- some of that was presumably the room. It was better than the imaging on my IVA's, but then I have a cramped room so I couldn't really make a direct comparison. Better than the imaging on the 30.7's too.

One question I have is whether the woofers would leave a bottom octave gap between your rotary woofer and their -3dB point, wherever that is. There are no specs yet.

 

Page processed in 0.050 seconds.