Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
64.12.116.207
Just out of curiosity, does anyone one know of any conventional loudspeakers (cones & domes) that can soundstage like magnepans?
Specifically what bothers me is when i hear conventional loudspeakers, when the instruments are panned either far left or right of the soundstage the image collapses down to the midrange/tweeter area of the speaker. It seems that any conventional loudspeaker that I have owned, or heard has this phenomenon. Maybe I am sensitive to this (maybe some aren't?).
But to me when I hear a loudspeaker do this it ruins the illusion and then I realize that I am listening to a speaker.
When I listen to Maggie's this doesn't happen, I forget that I am listening to a speaker and I am just immersed in the music/soundstage.
Does anyone know of a conventional loudspeaker that can do this type of soundstaging?Thanks for your replies
Follow Ups:
I have been a planar guy for most of my life, but the images created by a system I heard with the big Nearfield 64's was insane.
Not only were width, depth, and height frighteningly realistic, but the image perspective "followed you" as you change seating position.Needless to say, the entire listening experience was by the far the most memorable I have ever experienced, and I have heard some pretty damned nice systems in the past 25 years!
Of course, the system set-up is crucial and I have since heard really really crappy systems with these speakers or the next smaller ones.
Me, I'm just a lawnmower, you can tell me by the way I walk....
-Ray
.. disappear and throw a wonderful sound-stage.When a ribbon blew on my 2.5R's I had to find replacement speakers. I live in Europe and shipping the ribbons to Magnepan in the US was not an option.
I wanted European made, and narrowed selection down to 3 manufactures: Harbeth, Spendor and JM Reynaud. These 3 all do what maggies do, and then some, without having to break into a bank.
I went with JMR Offrandes. One listen, and I fell in love with their musical presence.
Hey Brian,
more importantly, they seem create a more realistic image height. After all, how many female vocalist are 6ft tall? I always found this a bit odd with my old 2.5's.
Cool.I always imagined that the singers were up a bit on a stage, so it actually worked out OK.
I just hate speakers that have 3ft vocalists, dirves me crazy, and most boxes I have heard seem to image that way.
> Do said speakers really produce 6ft tall images? <
My Montanas do......
when panned extreme left and right?
Do they also still have the sense of scale when instruments are all the way to their side?
That has been the problem I have been experiencing with conventional speakers. Which Montana's do you have?
I have owned SP2s, SPXs, and now have the EPS2s. Even the smaller Montanas have full sized images, even at the outside edges of the speakers. But imaging wise, they beat maggies with SS depth and ability to disappear.
Are those Maggies stock?Except for the fact that I have mentioned on line how things are set up, I could win gobs of money from blindfolded audiophiles by asking them to point to a speaker, and betting them that they would be wrong.
It is really hard to imagine even more depth and disappearnce than the modded maggies I have.
But if the montanas do that, they are one hell of a speaker.
For the record, I had modded 1.6s and stock 3.5s.
Yeah, I figured that some boxes do.I had heard a pair of Totem Mani-2s that did this. THey imaged way above their box.
But most seem to be only a few ft. high.
Yep, nothing worse in my opinion than a small speaker that sounds like a small speaker......
What if the small sounding speaker is driven by a PRO amp?? :)
Ouch, that hurts.But I suspect that would indeed be a worse scenario......
But seriously, would anyone claim that class AB was created as an improvement to the fidelity of class A? Nope, it's all about efficiency. I suspect class H (or class D, or...) is to class AB as class AB is to class A (all about efficiency). Then again, I cannot make any statements about the relative merits of pro amps because I have NEVER heard one. I did buy a Carver M400t (all about efficiency) once and I didn't like it (one motor-boating little SOB).
Some good Omni's, Orion, Obelisks (at least these days), Also the Beo 5 and some of the other mentioned here.
When it comes to good soundstage abilities in a speaker, the long discontinued Spica Angelus does an excellent job at a ridiculously low price. With good recordings, they can totally vanish.
IMO not if the Maggies are set up right - specially stage depth. Maggies need space (depending upon your room and set up about 3 feet) in the back to take advantage of the rear reflection for stage depth.
I agree that more soundstage depth is one of the main dipole attributes. 3 feet, however, IMO, is the minimum distance for best sound. More is more better.
Mostly no, but some conventional cone driver speakers have dipole-ish imaging and soundstaging. Compared to maggies the:
· Vandersteen 5 are rock solid, but more recessed
· Gallo Ref3 have an open and airy soundstage, but images are physically smaller in scale
· Peiga is a monitor that throws a huge soundstage, but images are a little fuzzy
· Devore Silverbacks – uh oh, these are my favorite non-planar.
Any system with time alignment of the drivers, lack of front panel diffraction artifacts, and proper placement to avoid early coherent reflections, can out-perform Maggies in creation of a spooky-real 3-D sound-stage. Maggies have too much distance between the driver sections to achieve this kind of alignment.The all-time best speakers for 3-D sound-stage audible anywhere in the listening room are the Beveridge Models 2 and 2-SW. The Dali Megalines come close.
However, there are always trade-offs. I can't stand the midrange distortion present in the Vandersteens, for example. The Beveridges are limited in loudness. The Dalis are out of my price range. My sideways MG-20s create a nice sound-stage, and are more revealing than I can determine, after years of experimentation on amplifiers and AC noise.
Hi Al,
Interesting idea you have come up with, no doubt influenced by the Beveridge concept. However; I was standing next to my Acoustats the other night and there is DEFINITELY a deep null on the sides of the speakers. When I stood directly inbetween them the Highs are essentially gone. Ok, this is truly 90 degrees off axis from the tweeter "section" of the speaker.Are you putting the speakers exactly parallel to each other or have you played a bit with angling them a bit? Did you put the tweeter section close to you are further away from you? I am curious to see what it will do with my electrostatic speakers.
How do you have your 20's positioned "sideways?"
This technique was developed by Liz Hare at Stereo Unlimited in Walnut Creek, CA.It works because the treble dispersion of the Magnepan ribbon is almost 180 degrees. I get as much treble by listening with the tweeter-side edges of the speakers facing forward as I do with the speakers facing forward in a normal setup.
I've got a polarity-reversal switch on my Wadia CD player that allows me to listen to most music with inverted polarity. Since I hear the rear wave first, this is the correct polarity position for my setup.
"It works because the treble dispersion of the Magnepan ribbon is almost 180 degrees. I get as much treble by listening with the tweeter-side edges of the speakers facing forward as I do with the speakers facing forward in a normal setup."The magnepan tweeter is a dipole radiator. As such, it radiates sound forwards and backwards equally. However, at 90 degrees off-axis the radiation pattern forms a deep null.
Your claim that you get as much treble energy with the tweeter-side edges of the speaker facing forward is precisely the opposite of what you would expect to hear. The direct energy radiated by the tweeter would be greater than 20db attenuated in the topmost octave. OTOH, the reflected energy from your room boundaries would be significantly higher than in a conventional (i.e. proper) setup.
The other problem with your recommended orientation is that the offset between the tweeter, mid and bass panels relative to your listening chair would be as far from ideal as possible. The crossover was designed with a time constant delay such that the arrival of signals from each panel reach your ears at roughly the same time. Rotating the panels 90 degrees off the design axis guarantees that you have effectively "undone" what the magnepan engineer designed the crossover to do. That said, the effect of the first problem will swamp the negative effects of this second problem.
It never ceases to amaze me how audiophiles and "experts" often muck up what physics (and common sense) dictate.
:)
It seems awfully nutty, but it DOES work if done properly. Also, it is physically impossible to sit 90 degrees off axis to both speakers (unless they are truly back to back). It works magic for near field listening. This is NOT how my Maggies are configured, but I DID try it and I was AMAZED.
in both Tim's observation and your reaction to the side-facing orientation is just how much influence--for good or ill (and that, I suspect, depends to some degree on personal preference)--reflected sound, particularly the range of audible reflected frequencies and their dispersive pattern, has on what we hear--and maybe want to hear--in our listening rooms.
Yep, you are dead on here.One of the reasons I dig this set up is that the imaging is more realistic than a normal setup.
When you go to the symphony, it is one big bowl of sound. All the ingredients are there in that bowl.
In a normal setup, it is if there are a lot of seperate bowls of soup on little silver platters, with each of the bowls having a different performer.
In a sideways setup, it is one big bowl of soup, and to me that sounds more like live music.
It is not the "hifi" sound that some people like, but IMHO it is more real.
Hey Wazoo,There will always be ones who hide behind theories as an excuse to be lazy and dismissive.
Be glad that you are not one of them.
I thought the idea was crazy - until I tried it. I found myself eating crow when I listened to my MMGs setup this way. For lack of a better expression, I was simply blown away (just never expected to hear anything close to what I heard). I decided I'd better be more open to different ideas (and to forget the things I thought I knew). At some point, I intend to give them a good listening test turned around with the pole pieces facing me - I need to know which way I like them before proceeding with rev2 of my framing project.
Yeah, I like your attitude. I am the same way. It just floors me that the smart science types are so damn close minded. I kind of thought that science was about being open minded and doing experiments, but so much of the time it seems like just the opposite.One would think that they would be actively looking for crazy things that didn't make sense but were true. Isn't that how science really progresses?
Anyhow, on my stand (which will be months away) it is fairly simple to reverse the orientation.
FWIW, I haven't done any direct comparisons, but when I went to a sideways setup, I was listening to the backs, and maybe THAT has something to do with why I like it better? I'll listen both ways and figure out what is more important.
You don't need to toss a toaster into the tub to know it's not a good idea. OTOH, some people swear by their Bose speakers. Go figure.
To be fair, the idea sounds like shear lunacy. It violates so many principals that it has to sound like crud. That's precisely what I thought I was going to hear when I tried it (had read about it numerous times and just chuckled).It sounds quite different, but the only tonal characteristic I could lay on it was a slight decrease in midrange forwardness - a good thing with my MMGs. The amazing thing was the soundstage - it just sounded more like live music. Ultimately, however, this arrangement is unworkable for me because mine are in a system that doubles as a home theater (the space between the speakers needs to be empty).
BTW I owned a pair of Bose 901s for about 2 weeks in the early '80s. I could never get satisfying sound out of them - tried dozens of placements to no avail. They had pretty awesome midrange though.
Waz,Exactly. My listening biases are for soundstage, and this is the most realistic presentation I have found.
And yes, that it works at all is quite amazing, and another reason I dig it.
And, it is a way to get mags out from the front wall in a small room, without killing the room.
wouldn't you want to know why?Or would you just assume that the guy was dead and the whole thing was made up because the theory says it is so?
The fact is that you haven't tried it, and you really should before dismissing it.
Hence the "closed minded" comment.
So are your Maggies both in front of you the standard 3-4 feet or so apart and facing each other? How far back do you sit? And what are the room dimensions? You've got 3.5Rs right? That's an amazing setup, if I understand it correctly. But if it works, it works.
My MG-20s are seven feet apart and I sit seven feet from each tweeter. This means my listening angle is 60 degrees, not 90 degrees. There is also quite a bit of baffling done by the speaker body, so the polar plot presented above is worthless.The room is 15 by 19 by 8. The bass panels are centered in the recommended Cardas positions, which give the best overall bass response. However, the unfortunate near-overlap of the height and width cause a bass dip along the center of the room.
Due to cable lengths, I was constrained to a smaller triangle. I found that I needed to be slightly nearer than would produce an equilateral - but ONLY slightly. As I moved a little closer, I started getting the feeling I was wearing headphones. As I moved outside of the equilateral, the tonal balance started getting objectionable. Inside that sweet spot, which was actually a little larger (relatively speaking) than a more "normal" orientation yields me, magic happened.To the nay-sayers: Don't dismiss this concept out of hand, but don't judge it from a half-assed experiment either. Give it a go, and be serious about it. Just prepare to be surprised. PG, if you're reading this, they don't beam in this orientation (common ground after all).
Al has some ribbons, and from what he says, you don't need to listen nearfield with the ribbons, but with the quasi ribbons it may HAVE to happen nearfield.
It does work, even on my MMgs although, I think on the non ribbons, one has to have a nearfield setup.I had mine set up about 7 ft apart, sitting 3ft back from the speaker plane, with the tweeters closest to the listening chair. THe phase needed to be changed, since I originally was listening to the backs of the speakers.
It is IME better than the normal straight forward set up....more realistic
Anyhow, here are some links about it:
http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/tweaks/facing.html
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=mug&n=108703&highlight=dawnrazor+wazoo&r=&session=
.
present in a recording depends not only on its specific design, implementation (including the all-important crossover), and the electronics driving it, but also placement, room acoustics, and listening position. Yes, the difference between line-source and point-source wave launch applies, but I've heard convincing soundstages "thrown" by conventional systems (e.g., Avalons and Wilsons) where the user or audio dealer has taken care in attending to placement and room issues. That said, I've voted with my dollars for Maggies.
> has taken care in attending to placement and room issues <See, this is an area where most people fall far short of the mark with ANY type of speaker, not just maggies. You will see speakers haphazardly placed with little or no thought to how they might perform in said placement, and then they wonder why the sound isn't what they had hoped for. Or worse, some will think they have achieved heaven with speakers butted up against the wall and huge TVs in between them. Why? Because these fools haven't heard any system that truly creates a 3 dimensional soundstage.
Yes, you have hit the nail on the head with this one. Even modest systems can be made to sound wonderful with a little attention to detail. Sorry for the rant.....
to get the sound staging right in a room b/c of their line source and dipole response pattern. Fewer initial nasty reflections to get in the way. Just get them some somewhat symetrical space behind with a bit of diffusion and angle to your sweet spot and the magic window opens...
Henry
If folks would spend half as much time correctly positioning their speakers as they do worrying about interconnects, speaker cables, dacs, magic ding-dongs and the like, they would make a 1000X more difference, for the better, in their systems.
best soundstage I've heard in my limited experience in hi-fi came from these:
True wrap around, 360 degree soundstage (front, side, rear).
'Course what would one expect from a $135,000.00 speaker?!(X-2 Alexandria)
"Live life as if you'll die tomorrow... -Gandhi
Learn life as if you'll live forever..."
Sure I like the Silverline Audio SR-12 mini-monitors better than the Maggies that I have. Disapear in the room wide and deep soundstage with pinpoint imaging.
where individual preferences come into play. I've yet to hear a point source speaker deliver a convincingly realistic sized image. While the image can be palpable and deliver great dimensional dimensions, the perspective always sounds distant to me.Conversely, others like Sigfried Linkwitz of Orion fame, find that line sources produce a bigger than life image. While I agree that grossly close miked recordings do tend to create such an effect, I don't find that to be the case with most of my recordings.
I've seriouly listened to only 2 speakers that I could clearly say imaged/soundstaged better and one of those was Soundlab electrostats. The conventional speaker was KEF Reference, $15K for a pair. Both were in a different league.ss9001
No speaker is going to soundstage just like a maggie, they all do it differently. But some are actually better than maggies, depending on what you value most.
if you can give them enough room to breathe. Had a pair of original Acoustic Energy AE-1s. Talk about imaging/soundstaging! Wow.
Henry
And agree they can throw a huge soundstage. (Merlin TSM MM and Rogers LS 2). I have also owned, or had in my room Vandersteen 2 ce sigs, Vandersteen 3a's, Audio Physic Virgo III's, Triangle Antal's, and nothing, except maybe the Triangles came close, (but they had other issues) could keep the scale of the soundstage when instruments were panned to the extreme left or right.
I do enjoy some the sharper imaging that conventional speakers convey, but when it goes to outside edges they just seem to drop for me.Thanks to all who replied.
Henry
nt
I had some fairly humble EPOS M15's that were pretty damn good. I had them a long way off the rear wall (which is where I think a lot of box owners fall down) and they had great depth, possibly better height differentiation than my 1.6's, and on most cd's very little was anchored near the speakers. Where they miss out compared the maggies is the size and scale of the images, plus through the Epos's individual images were far to precisely drawn, seeming to each have a small area of the stage that was unrelated to the rest of the group. WIth the maggies I get a more convincing feel of people playing together.Cheers,
Best soundstaging I've ever heard were fom a pair of "conventional" speakers, the DeVore Silverbacks, around $15k per pair. The speakers disappeared completely and there were palpable solid images of singers standing there in a 3D space where the speakers had been. I still get goosebumps thinking about my I heard. I've never heard a pair or MG20's so maybe they're capable of the same thing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: