Planar Speaker Asylum

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

Planar Speaker Asylum

Backward Maggies - Not so backward?

4.242.147.190

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ Planar Speaker Asylum ]

Backward Maggies - Not so backward?
After an Email discussion with an Asylum member (jump in here mystery man, I didn't want to mention your name without permission) about Maggies and Pole Piece orientation, I did a little experimentation. I turned my MMGs backwards. Mystery man, you are right! The back sounds as good or better than the front. I had concerns about "slit diffusion" and high frequency attenuation. He pointed out that older Maggies had their pole pieces on the front. With my MMGs backwords there is more speed I guess. I can't put my finger on what is different, but it is good. There is no loss of high end detail or extension. This got me to thinking. UH-OH.
On Magnepan drivers, the pole pieces are all on one side. Audio signals are alternating current. The wires glued on the mylar diaphragm are attracted and repelled, causing the diaphragm to produce sound waves. The forces are governed by the "inverse square law". When the diaphragm's oscillation brings it near the pole pieces, the attracting/repelling forces are much stronger than when the diaphragm is away from the pole pieces.
This means that the side of the sine wave/oscillation/mylar travel closest to the pole piece is going to have more power and more control. The side of travel away from the pole pieces will have less power and less control.
Am I understanding how this works? Does this make sense? Is the excursion of the mylar long enough that it makes a meaningful difference? Does the trailing edge of a sound wave need to have the same control as the leading edge?
It seems like Maggies should have pole pieces on both sides. Hmmm .....this could be a super mod.
Does anybody else listen to "backwards" Maggies?

Follow Ups:

Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - QuadTodd 17:41:25 03/12/07 (7)
Did you reverse your speaker cables too?
Listening to the back side would make the "Absolute Polarity" (where's Geo Louis when we need him?) of what you were accoustumed to, move from a + to a -. In other words, if I have this right, the mylar panel in the stock listening mode vibrates out/towards you on a certain note. If you flip the speaker around without switching the speaker cable + & - around, on that same note, you would be listening to a suck in/away from you. Does this make sense?
If not, I'll go back to my cave...
Todd
- Re:Did not switch speaker wire polarity. - DragonEars 22:49:06 03/12/07 (6)
  No, I did not switch speaker wire polarity.
  I am not clear on "absolute polarity". Since the speaker receives an AC signal and puts out a sine wave, I don't understand why absolute polarity matters. Music/sound will have both components of the wave form (diaphragm push/pull = both sides of sine wave). A note/sound would have to be very low and VERY brief ( ie - 20hz tone for less than 1/20th of a second) to have only one side of the wave.
  I need to understand "absolute polarity" better.
  - Here's another try... - QuadTodd 03:25:39 03/13/07 (5)
    The classic example is of a trumpet player when they hit that first blast is an example of an outgoing wave. IF it was all recorded and played back with the correct phase, your stereo would produce a duplicate outgoing wave. By reversing the position of your speakers, this would no longer be outgoing and the correction for that would be to also flip the red/black speaker cable legs on both speakers. Otherwise you have another listening variable there.
    A better example would be a kick drum (especially since we are all planer people here). By listening to your Maggies' backsides, you would be hearing a kick drum with the petal towards the audience, instead of by the drummer's seat, so when he pounds on it, the wave moves away from the listener instead of towards him. OK, another one would be talking while breathing in instead of out - didn't I see that as a TV commercial lately?
    I also understand what you are getting at with the "inverse square law" with more control on the magnet side, but to my thinking - and what do I know, a pair of Quad 63s live here with no magnets - this would only apply if there were two mylar diaphragms (and two sets of drive wires. Since the wires are glued to the panel, this is effectively one piece so the force would be the same on either side. If there were more force or control on the magnet pole side than on the plain side, the result would be a loosening or, in the extreme, tearing of the mylar away from the wire.
    - Re: Soundwaves are compressed/decompressed air... - DragonEars 00:38:06 03/14/07 (4)
      Trumpets, kick drums and voices are all waves of compressed and decompressed air propagating out from the source. They are not like an object in motion or a wind blowing. Sound propagates as the molecules crash into each other and transfer their energy. Sort of like a compression wave in a slinky toy. The wave travels through the slinky, but the slinky does not go anywhere. The sound wave is a series of high and low pressure rings propogating out. If the music caused the air to blow like wind we would all look like that old Memorex ad with the guy sitting in the chair in front of his stereo with his hair blowing back. LOL (you can feel wind from bass ports, but that is different)
      I'm not familiar with how Quads work. Don't they use two charged screens that push and pull the diaphragm back and forth? Magnepans use wires glued to a mylar diaphragm. One side has many thin vertical magnets. The signal causes the wires to attract/repel to the magnets, vibrating the mylar. Since there are magnets on only one side, the forces changes as the distance does. Wires on Magnepans do come loose. They peel off the mylar eventually. This is from time, humidity and poor adhesive.
      - Re: Soundwaves are compressed/decompressed air... - QuadTodd 17:53:21 03/14/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Soundwaves are compressed/decompressed air... posted by DragonEars on March 14, 2007 at 00:38:06:
        
        A kick drum is not an object in motion? All these years I thought I've seen the skin move! What you are not following is that I was talking about the first transient - the inital blast of the trumpet, as I called it.
        By positioning your speakers backwards, instead of "the sound wave is a series of high and low pressure rings propogating OUT" (my emphasis), they are moving away from you towards your front wall, throwing 2 variables (position and wave front launch) into your new listening procedure. It might take two minutes to switch your speaker cables around to see if you can tell a difference.
        Quads use an electrically charged diaphram between the two stators. The first set of Magneplaners I heard was about 30 years ago so they are pretty familiar territory but the point was that the panel would tear itself apart if there was more force on the magnet side than the other.
        
        Re:Ah, I get it now - DragonEars 22:27:21 03/14/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Soundwaves are compressed/decompressed air... posted by QuadTodd on March 14, 2007 at 17:53:21:
        
        QuadTodd
        Yeah, I see what you mean. The first transient would definitely have a direction. A kickdrum definitely has a directional launch of energy. I'll try listening with cable polarity swithed.
        All bipolar speakers by definition launch the wave front and back, opposite polarity. The back wave reflects off the front wall and returns with, but slightly off the front wave. I know the space from the front wall is important, but the whole idea seems problematic to me. Now I'm trying to understand absolute polarity and reverse polarity and it is confusing me.
        Absolute polarity is dicussed elsewhere in this thread.
        Maybe I should stop thinking about it and just enjoy the music. It's a truly amazing thing, audio and the human ear. I've never heard Quads, only Magnepans and Martin Logans. I love the way bipolars sound.
        
        Re:Ah, I get it now - not so fast! - wazoo 05:17:20 03/15/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re:Ah, I get it now posted by DragonEars on March 14, 2007 at 22:27:21:
        
        "A kickdrum definitely has a directional launch of energy." Yes, the initial compression zone leads the rarefaction zone, but is that what we *hear*? The most vexing problem when thinking about this issue arises from analogizing across phenomenological domains. Consider the post from "gymwear5@hotmail.com" which suggests the ultimate arbiters of hearing operate as "threshold triggered digital signal" generators. If this is so, we are insensitive to absolute phase. We simply hear the changes in pressure.
        Like you, I intend to settle this issue for myself this weekend.
        
        "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
        
        This is my take - QuadTodd 13:58:05 03/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re:Ah, I get it now - not so fast! posted by wazoo on March 15, 2007 at 05:17:20:
        
        I can hear polarity on some recordings, others have mixed results. For me, there is just not enough time to listen to all the music I want, now and in the future, let alone to spend it on deciphering if each recording is a + or - and then switching speaker cables accordingly. It may be more important to others, but then I don't the VTA on my tonearm either. Majority rules in this system and it sounds good on most recordings; if it doesn't, I chalk it up to 'it could have been better' whether it be polarity, mike technique or a tin-eared producer!
        DragonEars, I know exactly what you mean by the bipolar sound. 18 years ago, I was looking for a better amplifier and walked out with a pair of Quad 63s, thinking "What the hell just happened?".
Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - wazoo 07:11:35 03/12/07 (8)
Okay folks, I�m trying to get my head around this principal (listening to the pole piece side is better than the naked side), but I�m having trouble. As I understood things, sound is a mechanical wave � a pressure wave in fact. As the transducer moves out towards the listener, it produces an area of compression and as it moves back away from the listener, it creates an area of rarefaction. What we hear is a function of both � we hear the whole wave, not just the compression half of the cycle. Futhermore, sound is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave (even though it can be represented by a sine wave).
I understand the inverse square law as it applies to a transducer, but I�m puzzled how that makes listening to the �fronts� different from listening to the �backs� � unless our hearing is more tuned to the compression half of the wave. I admit that I haven�t turned my MMGs around � that would present a bit of a problem since modifying them as I have.
Of course, the idea of listening to these speakers positioned so as to face one another seemed like sheer lunacy until I tried it. What I heard amazed me. I guess it�s time to put yet another orientation to the test. You know, life was simple with box speakers � planars obey an entirely different set of laws.

"Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
- Re: My bad - Original post had TWO topics - DragonEars 23:12:33 03/12/07 (5)
  My bad - Original post had TWO topics
  Topic 1) Maggie sound with pole peices in front
  Topic 2) The forces/control on the mylar diaphragm when it is close vs far from the pole pieces. I should have posted them (my random thoughts) seperately.
  Thank you for picking this up and cogitating on it.
  I don't think this has any affect on the frontwards/backwards sound. This has me wondering about how the actual waveform is created/controlled by Maggies.
  When the diaphragm's oscillation brings it near the pole pieces, the attracting/repelling forces are much stronger than when the diaphragm is away from the pole pieces. This means that the side of the sine wave/oscillation/mylar travel closest to the pole piece is going to have more power and more control. The side of travel away from the pole pieces will have less power and less control.
  I am wondering what this does to the sound wave. It seems like it would create waves that were different on one half of their waveforms.
  Sorry I got this wrapped in with turning Maggies around.
  - Re: an intriguing conundrum - wazoo 05:02:13 03/13/07 (4)
    First of all, be careful when thinking about sound as a sine wave - that is merely a representational convenience. Actual sound is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave.
    Secondly, your logic concerning the behavior of the diaphragm in relation to the distance from the pole piece is faultless, but I'm puzzled how this relates to what we hear. If we only heard the compression of air molecules this would make absolute sense, but the rarefaction is just as much a part of what we hear as the compression is. The magnitude of change is the same regardless of which is the stronger (compression or rarefaction).
    There is little doubt that the two sides sound different since they radiate through different materials - on one side through a nearly transparent piece of cloth, and on the other side through small holes in mostly solid matter. If dirty socks (or socks vs. naked - see the thread about socks) can affect the sound, surely the pole piece does as well.
    I'm *NOT* insinuating that anyone is crazy, or even just wrong for preferring one orientation over the other. I'm just trying to understand why this should be so. Of course, I'm thinking about it from an engineering perspective which may be completely foolish. On the other hand, there may be some euphonic effect which arises from forcing the sound of the front wave through those little holes while the back wave is unimpeded - they *are* planars after all.
    In any case, I need to try it for myself and reverse my speakers. This brings up one more thing which I�m finding difficult to comprehend � concern over absolute phase. Relative phase is one thing, and maintaining it is critical, but who knows which absolute phase is correct? How many times is the phase flipped through a signal chain? That chain starts, by the way, with the actual recording of the performance. Am I missing something?
    I sincerely apologize to anyone who might be offended by this post.
    
    "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
    - Re: I don't "get" absolute phase - DragonEars 01:16:48 03/14/07 (1)
      Wazoo
      I understand that sine waves only represent amplitude and wavelength (strength and time). Sound waves are propogating waves of compression/rarefaction.
      The question of difference of force/control of the mylar changing with distance from the pole pieces is interesting. There must be a difference. But like you said: How does affect what we hear?
      As to the "Backward Maggie", I knew they would sound different. I thought they would only sound good one way. Less "stuff" in front of any driver is a good thing. I was surprised that I didn't dislike the sound. They sound different, but good . They should sound worse, but they don't. I don't understand.
      Absolute Phase - I'm absolutely clueless
      I don't understand why it matters. Does the human ear and brain care? A recording starts from silence, and then builds in amplitude. At some point the amplitude becomes great enough that we begin to hear it. When does phase start to matter? Does it matter? Why?
      The more I know, the more I know I don't know.
      Ignorance is bliss.
      - Re: Thank you! - wazoo 05:03:43 03/14/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: I don't "get" absolute phase posted by DragonEars on March 14, 2007 at 01:16:48:
        
        It's good to know that I'm not the only one struggling to comprehend the issue of absolute phase. This weekend (when I have the time to mess around with such things), I'm going to conduct a few experiments and switching phase will be one. One of the problems with listening tests is that they can be colored by a priori beliefs. I'm going to construct a method that permits me to listen blindly (of course, I still believe that there won't be a real difference) - only my wife will know what the phase will be. At least I'll be able to settle the issue for myself.
        As I mentioned elsewhere, I would expect there to be a difference in the sound of each side of Maggies due to the different transparency of the materials on each side. I suspect that is the better explanation than the inverse square law effect, but what do I know? My other question should not be taken lightly - how do you know the absolute phase of each recording? There is NO standard to my knowledge. I haven't received an answer to the query about the alternations of phase throughout the entire chain of electronics - beginning with the actual recording. Is absolute phase maintained absolutely? To my thinking, this makes clear assertions about absolute phase highly suspect, but what do I know?
        
        "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
    - Re: an intriguing conundrum - Dawnrazor 08:47:16 03/13/07 (1)
      As for absolute phase, if you reverse your speakers, you should change the speaker cables to match. This is so that you are making a fair comparison and that you are not just hearing differences in absolute phase.
      Not that you are likely to hear them on maggies anyhow.
      Yeah, you are right about the recording and also that few recordings are actually done so that all the parts are in phase. Most have some part if not many in different phase.
      - Re: absolute phase is a puzzler to me - wazoo 17:37:58 03/14/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: an intriguing conundrum posted by Dawnrazor on March 13, 2007 at 08:47:16:
        
        I plan on conducting experiments this weekend, so I'll have more to say later. For the moment (until I prove to myself that I'm mistaken), I don't really think it's a real issue. In any case, I'd bet about half of the recordings in my collection are out of (absolute) phase from the other half - should I be flipping my speaker wires back and forth trying to figure out which orientation is "right" for each disc? This sounds like a real PITA to me!
        Back in the late 60s, I had a receiver (Voice of Music) that had a phase switch on it, but I haven't (to the best of my recollection) owned a piece of electronics (except for subwoofers - for the obvious reason of RELATIVE phase) with such a switch since. There must be a reason for that, no?
        The biggest problem with phase, to my knowledge, has to be the partial, frequency dependent shifts induced by various reactive components of a passive crossover.
        
        "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
- Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - gymwear5@hotmail.com 12:50:15 03/12/07 (1)
  We'd like to think that it is the complete wave form we hear - Pressure wave pressing and sucking the ear drum - that pushes the Stapes in the middle ear against the cochlea - so far so good. But the hair fibers (Cilia)and the nerves they are attached to are more of a threshold triggered digital signal. The outer most hair cells behave mostly on the high frequencies and do seem to have some more "Analog" like characteristics.
  - Re: sound and ears - wazoo 18:08:21 03/12/07 (0)
    Well, the middle ear does create a compressional wave in the fluid of the inner ear where the actual nerve impulses that feed our brains are generated. This feat is accomplished by the stereocilia of the cochlea - the basilar membrane to be more precise. The cochlea per se is the neural conduit to the brain. It is the stapes (stirrup) which is the last in the chain of the middle ear, and it is what ultimately generates the compression wave that stimulates the aforementioned cilia. All that *starts* with the movement of the eardrum in response to the varying pressurization of the air molecules surrounding our heads. What happens on the other side of the eardrum is a different phenomenon altogether from its reaction to the outer stimulus, and I was unaware that the hair on the outer ear had any role in hearing, but I�ve been out of school for a very long time.
    In any case, I�m not sure I get your point, at least not if my understanding of the behavior of the eardrum is correct � it may not be. I�m assuming any difference in the perceived sound from forward vs. backward firing Maggies must be explainable from the eardrum out (in the realm where the speakers are actually operating). I don�t have the supporting evidence of any measurements, but I�d assume there to be *some* difference in the tonal characteristics of the sound of each side � due to the differing transparency of the materials between the transducers and one�s ears. Just look at the thread above concerning Maggie socks � if the socks (or the cleanliness thereof) influence the sound, how can the pole pieces not?
    Perhaps I just answered my own question.
    
    "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
Sideways... - Al Sekela 16:27:14 03/11/07 (1)
My MG-20s are turned to face directly away from each other. The tweeter dispersion is nearly 180 degrees, so there is no loss of treble information at the listening chair. The back of the tweeter does not have magnets or sock fabric over it, but I don't know if this makes any difference to the sound.
If the sound pressures from the fronts and backs of the drivers were any different, there would have to be significant energy absorbing materials on the weaker sides. The pole pieces and sock fabric do not seem to be such absorbers.
- Re: SPL - front vs back - DragonEars 19:56:56 03/11/07 (0)
  Al
  There must not be a significant difference front vs back. My previous thoughts were about the differences due to the pole pieces on one side causing uneven force and control on the mylar diaphragm. The "inverse square law" means there is more force on the mylar when it is on the pole piece side of it's oscillation and less when it is away. I didn't mean absorbtion. I mean actual differences in attraction/repelling forces as the mylar's distance from the pole pieces changes.
  Additionally, if there is a significant difference, it seems like this would create a bias on the mylar diaphragm. Sort of a pressure bias as the diaphragm is being driven. I guess this would just load the mylar until it found it's equalibrium point (but, that would change with signal strength. Also with signal frequency and the natural frequency of the mylar diaphragm).
  Thanks,
  Mike
Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - Dorkkus 21:52:01 03/10/07 (0)
not crazy at all.
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=mug&n=77917 (Open in New Window)
Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - Peter Gunn 20:38:05 03/10/07 (9)
I don't know if you mean me, (I talk to too many people and can't keep it all straight) but I have always believed this to be true.
I think it is because on a maggie the rear wave is the important one, and it should not be going thru the pole piece. You not only get better bass with the mylar to the rear, you get a more musical ambience.
I really believe they changed because they need to grab listeners in todays modern 15 second audition period. Turned, they beam harder, sound louder and more "dynamic" and are more likely to grab a.... well, an ignorant consumer. I am sure magnepan tried it both ways in the beginning, and it doesn't cost any more or less facing them one way or the other, and the pole piece was always front, where I do believe it belongs.
If you didn't mean me...... sorry.... :^ )

It's all about the music...
- An interesting observation: - Cory M. 11:07:50 03/11/07 (2)
  Backwards Maggies must not be so backward. People owning speakers with mylar in front want it in back, and people with mylar in the back want it in the front.
  I've been using my IIIAs, which were designed with the pole pieces in front, "backwards" for quite some time, and I definitely like this presentation better. I have used them extensively both ways, and I find that with listening to the mylar directly they produce a more lively and less veiled sound (on these particular speakers,) and not just over a short "15 second" period- I listen sometimes for hours and don't get fatigued. They are dynamic when they need to be, and romantic when the music calls for it, to the extent the speaker is capable of.
  I really do like all aspects of this "reversed" positioning better, except one that was mentioned- the bass is a little snappier and controlled with magnet- in- front polarity. I know that Andy R. and other 3A owners have reversed their mid/ bass panels for the same reasons.
  In all fairness, I recall you mentioning that you didn't care for the true ribbons, that they just bugged you the same way a CRT monior would with it's high pitch energy. On the other hand, I enjoy the energetic liveliness. Maybe you prefer a more "laid back" sound? Not trying to critisize at all, just to understand. Of course it's all relative to many factors governing the way the sound is perceived in room, and in person from one to the next.
  
  Cory
  - Re: An interesting observation: - Peter Gunn 11:45:32 03/11/07 (1)
    By all means your input is welcome. I'm not trying to lay down a gospel. I just personally believe in many cases and for many people pole front would be preferred, just like a slight tip is preferrable. (even if it's only 51-49)
    Mart is the one who can't stand CRT monitors. I happen to have slightly better high end hearing than a normal person (which for better or worse has not dropped off at 40). I can't "hear" dog whistles and those things you plug in to get rid of rodents, but I feel pressure in my head, get irascible (I mean more than usual :^ ) and can get a headache if around it too long. Any ribbon tweeter sounds shrill and metallic to me, so much so I can literally "taste" it. It's not a matter of being more laid back, it's simply too "hot" for me that way, and I do find it tilts the balance spectrum.
    I think it can't hurt to have generalized setup guidelines, but everyone should be open to try all setup positions. Even what Dawnrazor does. After all, you never know. The goal is just to be happy, not identical.
    
    It's all about the music...
    - Re: An interesting observation: - Cory M. 16:23:14 03/11/07 (0)
      You've sure got that right. The goal should be "to be happy" with our systems. Take advice, but tune it yourself.
      
      You know, sometimes it sucks being an audiophile and thus more sensitive to all kinds of sounds, esp. extreme high range in your case. We're lucky (or cursed :) to have that kind of hearing (or interpreting of sound.) It took me a long time and many component/ tube/ cable/... changes to get used to the ribbons, but now that they're dialed in I love them.
      
      Cory
- Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - DragonEars 22:36:37 03/10/07 (5)
  PG
  Yep. I meant you, but didn't want to use your name without permission.
  Everything you said in our Emails and in this post is true. I don't understand why it sounds different. You say the rear wave is more important. That wave is delayed (reflected, longer path) and has more chance of being changed (reflected and diffused) by the front wall, diffusion, equipment, ficus trees, etc.. It seems counter-intuitive, but definitely sounds good. I would never have thought to turn them around. Thanks for the idea. It is just amazing what these speakers are capable of. I can only imagine how they will sound modded.
  Thanks
  Mike (Oh...that Mike)
  - Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - Peter Gunn 09:07:35 03/11/07 (4)
    If repeating a conversation we had you can use my name.
    My opinion in this matter is based around many years of owning maggies and listening to them, not any "hard" science. (although repeated validated listening may very well count as that) Real life applications often confound experts because things often simply don't behave in actual use like they thought they were going to on paper, which is why I put more stock in judging a speaker by listening to it.
    I am finding my new wood frames make the highs and mids sound very much like an electrostat. Very clear and pure of tone. (granted, some maggie fans may not prefer that) The bass however goes well beyond any stat, and way beyond just about any maggie yet they have not lost the inherent maggie "sound".
    The 1.6's are about half way done, but I need to find a new way to join the frames so they don't skew while clamping.
    
    It's all about the music...
    - Ears vs Science - DragonEars 19:28:47 03/11/07 (0)
      PG
      I trust your ears over science. "Hard Science" can improve alot of things but I trust a careful listener more to make or improve a great speaker. Don't get me wrong, I am no Luddite. I love technology. But that being said, many of audio's best sounding devices are, or are based on older technology. I don't want a speaker that "technically" sounds better. I want it to actually sound better, to human ears. I haven't seen your ears, but I assume they are human.
      Your full frames and bracing should really keep the drivers and vibration in control. Plus, DANG...they are pretty.
      I hope the 1.6s go well, frame and crossover. I can't wait to hear how they turn out.
      Thanks,
      Mike
    - Re: better clamping method - wazoo 11:11:33 03/11/07 (2)
      Is this what you're doing?
      
      "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
      - Re: better clamping method - Peter Gunn 12:00:03 03/11/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: better clamping method posted by wazoo on March 11, 2007 at 11:11:33:
        
        I use 2 Bessy K bar clamps on each end side, and one older long I beam bar clamp for the ends.
        Part of my problem is my corners are not neat 45 degree miters and the pieces are not the same width. The ones at the top in fact are very oblique angles. I considered doing it your way but it's not any more practical. I also prefer the way I do it as you can check squareness of the entire frame at once and glue it in one go.
        I need to install a dowel in each corner. That will stop the frame from racking under clamping pressure. The only problem with that is they must be drilled perfectly, and I'm going to buy a jig that can do that. I hate all forms of modern joinery: biscuits, dowels etc... but traditional methods would not be practical with this design.
        Are these the frames you're making? Looks good so far. I see you got your wazoo worked out too.
        
        It's all about the music...
        
        Re: No sir, that isn't my work. - wazoo 13:04:55 03/11/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: better clamping method posted by Peter Gunn on March 11, 2007 at 12:00:03:
        
        That is an example of what I found while Googling "clamp miter join". What an incredible tool the Internet has become! I know it has its dark side (Hasn't everything?), but it has increased the spread of information incalculably (for better and worse, I know).
        Anyway, thanks for sharing your issues. I think the method illustrated by that photograph will work perfectly for me - on three sides (they'll be of equal widths). The bottom piece will be considerably wider, but I still plan to join it on a 45 degree angle - the rest of its width won't get mitered (the sides of my frames will not be seen as they will inside dados in my braces - I was considering "scoring" the extra wide piece at the width of the others to give it a more symmetrical appearance, but I haven't decided on it). Obviously that clamping method won't work for the fourth piece, and I'm still puzzling over that detail.
        I can't start until I have my wood - which will be in a week (I think). In the meantime, I am working out various techniques with lesser materials - some things are trickier than they appear, but I think I'm ready. It's certainly been a fun endeavor so far, but it hasn't been particularly cheap. On the other hand, I think the little Maggies have a great deal of potential, and they have rewarded my efforts with better sound.
        "Dawnrazor" sent me a link to the secret codes and the rest was elementary. I'm not trying to be a copy cat, but I liked your signature line - very cool. It prompted me to look up Duane Eddy. As a former guitar (and sax and flute) player, I didn't know why I was unfamiliar with him - a little twangy, but he's very good.
        
        "Jazz is not dead - it just smells funny" FZ ♬
Re: Backward Maggies - Not so backward? - Dawnrazor 20:26:46 03/10/07 (0)
Just below on a thread about a sideways setup, I was talking about how wonderful this setup is.
Well, when I did it due to speaker lengths, it was easier to turn the right speaker counterclockwise 90 degrees, and the left one clockwise 90 degrees.
This meant that I was listening to the BACK.
I still haven't verified that this was one of the reasons that the sideways setup sounded so good. It may have been a combination of both listening to the backs and the sideways setup.
That said, when I moved, I set them up for front listening, and the results were not good. But there were many other factors involved, and I can't conclude that the front had anything or nothing to do with the bad sound I had in that room. I never put in the time to get it to sound good, because it was pointless.
Now, in the new place, I can take the time to figure out whether the backs or the fronts sound better.
Perhaps someone will do this before I get my system up and running in the new room.

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

Amplified Parts

You can not post to an archived thread.