You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Magnepan transformations.

I arranged with Peter Gunn to have a pair of Magnepans transformed as he does that magic http://www.indiespinzone.com/magnestand.html. Room size allows for both MMGs and 1.6. The truth is that I was impressed with the detail of the 1.7s. I never really got a good grasp of the definition of the term "musicality". What I am searching for is a condition where I can block out vision and hear the piano or the lead violin next to me, and the room to be filled. Differentiating detail from "musicality" isa concept I can not understand. I was never impressed with the Bose 901 philosophy of fullness that is generated through reflections from surfaces that were not ideal to reflect HiFi generated sound at odd location such as the side of the room's door, 3 ft away from the window etc. I am surely not looking for that if that is musicality. Since I did not purchase the speakers yet, I wonder if I should go for the 1.6 or the MMGs.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
How big is your listening

How big is your listening room?

If you use the MMGs you will save some money to get other goodies, like maybe some room treatments.

MikeP
MikeP's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: Mar 22 2007 - 12:51pm
901's setup
Iasonas wrote:

I arranged with Peter Gunn to have a pair of Magnepans transformed as he does that magic http://www.indiespinzone.com/magnestand.html. Room size allows for both MMGs and 1.6. The truth is that I was impressed with the detail of the 1.7s. I never really got a good grasp of the definition of the term "musicality". What I am searching for is a condition where I can block out vision and hear the piano or the lead violin next to me, and the room to be filled. Differentiating detail from "musicality" isa concept I can not understand. I was never impressed with the Bose 901 philosophy of fullness that is generated through reflections from surfaces that were not ideal to reflect HiFi generated sound at odd location such as the side of the room's door, 3 ft away from the window etc. I am surely not looking for that if that is musicality. Since I did not purchase the speakers yet, I wonder if I should go for the 1.6 or the MMGs.

From what I heard on other forums is some are setting up their 901's with the speakers turned around backwards and liking the sound a lot better set up like this.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
901 reflections
MikeP wrote:

From what I heard on other forums is some are setting up their 901's with the speakers turned around backwards and liking the sound a lot better set up like this.

Admittedly, it does not surprise me at all. The high frequencies come out more direct and do not get lost in the home wall surfaces that were not designed to reflect sound to begin with (contractors use sheetrock because it is cheap, not because it bounces high frequencies well!!!). Then the bass can probably give more of a fullness effect by that being reflected around. It may be a paradox but it just works because of parameters that Bose probably did not consider.

Reed
Reed's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 5:37am
Room surface critical

I have the 1.6QRs and they are magical. I have done a lot of experimenting with room acoustics, and have finally locked in on the right mix on surface texture/foam treaments for my room.

They have to be the one of THE most room dependent speakers, and if you stand behind one while it's playing you can understand why. There is a lot of sound coming out of the back of the Maggies. They need to be out from the front wall and in from the side walls. Mine sit about 4 ft from the front wall and about a foot and a half from the sides. That is quite a challenge for most rooms, but it was a must for me to get the most out of them.

I listen to a lot of acoustic guitar, piano, vocals and jazz. I have had a lot of different kinds speakers, but none have ever painted such a realistic picture of the musicians.

I live in the St. Louis area and went to listen to Erin Bode in a jazz bar setting. As soon as I got home, I popped in a CD that had several of the songs that she sang. It was like I was still there in the jazz bar.

One of those "goose bump" moments.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Maggies surface critical

Actually Reed, my reply was for Bose 901s and the effect of reflections. The Bose 901s are supposedly designed for reflected sound. I was never impressed with their concept at all. Of course, with Maggies being skin deep there is no doubt that reflections from the back side are going to be very critical. After all, they do not have the volume to enclave the negative phase sound on the back side of the drivers. I used to own AR9s and those actually had wonderful volume for that job; just a different approach that the Maggies have. Maggies clarity is quite something but all loudspeakers will need a special spatial arrangement. I believe that if Maggies are well set within the space, they can be "Magics" to the ears. I only listened to stock 1.7s recently in a relatively so-so space, and was quite impressed.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Room size
jackfish wrote:

How big is your listening room?

If you use the MMGs you will save some money to get other goodies, like maybe some room treatments.

It is about 204 ft^2 but will be about 270 or so after transformation. I believe that there is room for MMGs through 1.6, but given the more "detail" type of acoustical design they have.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
MMGs
Iasonas wrote:

It is about 204 ft^2 but will be about 270 or so after transformation. I believe that there is room for MMGs through 1.6, but given the more "detail" type of acoustical design they have.

The MMGs should work well for you then.

Derry
Derry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 7 months ago
Joined: Feb 10 2011 - 9:45am
another 1.6QR owner and love

another 1.6QR owner and love em,, my HT room is about 2800 CU FT

I have Peter Gunns XOs and wired to his specs,, they are fired up off a Marantz SR9600,,

so crisp and clear,,

supported by a SVS PB13 Ultra for the HT movies,,

Derry

common sense is not common

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Did you get the MMGs?

I wonder if you got the MMGs "Gunned" already. I got a pair of 1.6 finally and they are sent to Pennsylvania for the appropriate treatment. I wonder if you heard your MMGs and how they sound. Please let me know.
Thanks

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
They are still with Peter Gunn.

I expect they will be back within the week. There was a delay in getting the new and improved inductors for the crossover and he wanted to keep them a couple of days longer to make sure things sounded right with the newer crossover components. Won't be too much longer.

I will be building a pair of Critical Q subwoofers without the plate amp and amp chamber so they each will be about 17.323" deep, 14.173" wide and 16.142" tall. I'll use an Elemental Designs eQ.2 and a Crown XLS1000 Drivecore amp. http://www.customanalogue.com/sub_index.htm

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
How are the MMGs?

Hi Jackfish,
I wonder how the MMGs sound. I am expecting my 1.6 to get gunned sometime in the near future but I wonder how you feel about the gunned version of the MMGs already.
I just purchased a pair of small Kef speakers for the study area (just trying to keep a budget) so I have something to listen to until the big guns (pun intended) arrive.
Best regards
Jason

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
They certainly are different.

I am still playing around with placement. But one thing for sure, the amount of detail they exhibit is startling. Literally. I am often now surprised by things I hear in the music I never noticed before. I assume the crossovers are still breaking in so I'll keep listening before further assessment. Initial impressions are favorable.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/MagnestandMMG1.jpg

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
How are the "Gunned" MMGs?

I am expecting my pair of gunned 1.6 speakers but I was wondering about your MMGs. BTW is that an emotiva system that you have there? 

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
Emotiva

ERC-1 CD player, USP-1 preamp and a pair of UPA-1 monoblock amplifiers.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
So it is an Emotiva

So you actually do have an Emotiva system!  How well do they marry to the gunned MMGs? 

Oh and another question for you Jackfish:  What cables are you using for your speakers or for your interconnections?

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
I'm of the opinion

that cables should be of good quality materials and flexible, but not necessarily expensive.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#thetruth

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost

As long as interconnects are of good quality materials and flexible there are many choices.  I use inexpensive Steren Python RCA cables and can't tell the difference between them and those which cost 20 to 100 times as much.

Steren Python RCA Cables
6' - 254-215BL as low as $1.40 (no, I'm not kidding)
12' - 254-220BL as low as $2.87 (still not kidding)
High-Definition Home Theater RCA Interconnects
Unparalleled Quality and Top-Line Performance for Home Theater Audio Equipment
Ultra Flexible Rubberized 6.0mm OD PVC Jacket
Low Density Foam Dielectric
AWG26 Stranded Copper Center Conductor
100% Spiral-Wound Bare Copper Shield
99.99% Pure Oxygen-Free Copper Wire
24K Gold-Plated Heavy-Duty RCA Connectors
Color-Coded
Fully Molded Construction

 

As far as the Emotiva brand is concerned, you would be hard pressed to find any other product that delivers so much for the price.  The UPA-1 amplifiers seem a perfect match for the Magnepan MMG in smaller rooms.  With your 1.6s and a larger room you might want to consider an XPA-2 or a pair of XPA-1s.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Well, I guess there may still be a slight difference there.
jackfish wrote:

that cables should be of good quality materials and flexible, but not necessarily expensive.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#thetruth

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#alllowcost

As long as interconnects are of good quality materials and flexible there are many choices.  I use inexpensive Steren Python RCA cables and can't tell the difference between them and those which cost 20 to 100 times as much.

 

I have to admit that the hype about cables, let alone the costs for a pair of "Odin Supreme" seem way too extravagant!  Nevertheless, I did hear a significant difference only by chance believe it or not.  I went recently to a really good Hi-Fi store in Minnepolis to do a listening test between the Rega Saturn and the Ayre 5 and 7 CD players.  I surely could hear the difference in sound.  Anyway, at a certain point they used a different cable, and all of a sudden things came out much clearer.  Eventually I had to admit the superiority of the 5 over the 7, with Rega coming 3rd, but when the same cable was used for the 5 and the 7 the difference in sound (to me) was evident but not justifying the difference in price.  Instead,  I would invest the extra $200 for the cables and go with the 7.

On the subject of resistance, there is the issue of "Eddy currents" or "Foucault currents" that can be generated just by the formation and the geometry of the wires.  I believe that these are most likely to occur at the connectors area - this is my high school physics talking so I am a bit rusty.  I believe that in the end it is much hit or miss on how we match and marry all of these.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Cable prices

There is no doubt that cable prices in some cases are ridiculous. However, using Roger Russell's site as an excuse for buying the cheapest available IC's and cables is a cop out. Listen for yourself and make up your own mind.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
Well, I'm sure one can find speaker wire and

interconnects cheaper than the ones I use.  However, that wasn't my point, which was closer to yours. When one is listening for themselves and making up their own mind, price does not always mean better.  I was presenting alternative views to demonstrate that conventional or popular wisdom may not always bring the desired results. As long as cables are of good quality materials and flexible, price doesn't matter a whole lot.  And that is something I can hear. Perhaps there is actually documented double blind testing available that proves otherwise.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
DBT no way

In my experience the only thing that DBT has ever proved is that standard DBT proves nothing.

Although this method is really single blind testing. There is a twist.

Have a friend, SO or whatever insert a pair if IC's or cables in your system and go away.

You're not allowed to know which IC or speaker cable is the DUT.

Listen at your leisure for a couple of days. Keep notes of your listening impressions.

Said friend returns after a couple of days and either switches IC's/cables or doesn't.  You don't know because you're out of the room.

Listen at your leisure for a couple of days.  Keep notes of your listening impressions.

Do this a dozen times or so.

Compare your notes with what only the cable changer knows about what was used.

I'm reasonably certain you'll hear differences.

A couple of my buddies and I have performed this kind of listening test with each other. We all heard differences. 

My first wife and my best friends wife knew immediately when a cable of IC had been changed. Both of them always had a definite and immediate preferrence. I always ended up agreeing with a choice they made in a few minutes. It just took me longer.  

The good part is you're listening to your musical selections  and your gear in your room with no pressure. Therefore  there's no test anxiety.

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
It took a while but now they're finally connected

Hi Jackfish,...
I have to admit a couple of things about the Magnestands.  The detail is incredible.  These are great speakers.  However, when I compare them to the good ole faithful AR9s I had, I have to admit the AR9s win.  Honestly they do.  The detail is very much the same, but the way those old speakers fill the room is just incredible.  It may have to do with the four lower woofers facing outwords, ..I don't know what it is, but they do not have a sweet spot whatsoever.  The Magnestands are great speakers and I prefer them to everything I heard recently (BW, Paradigm studio 100, etc).  If they had more woofer power they would have probably been a match to the ARs or probably a slight edge over.  Yes, Herbert Von Karajan did not chose the AR9s for nothing.  
Do you have any suggestions other than turning the "toner mode" on and the bass knob a notch or two?

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
While the bass a Magnestand produces is superior to

a stock version, much of that may actually be the quality of the sound rather than going much lower. So, one can still only expect Magnestand 1.6s to reach down to about 40Hz. For realistic bass from all sources I suggest using the Rythmik F12 subwoofer with your loudspeakers. What amplifier components are you using with the Magnestands?

Iasonas
Iasonas's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: Jan 15 2011 - 6:54pm
Magnestands 1.6 running on Marantz 2500

I have a good ole faithful Marantz 2500 giving some 330 w/channel.  The sound is vivid and extremely clear.  The detail is impressive and I am getting more and more impressed by it.  However the lower end is not quite as punchy as I would have wanted it to be, and I am not talking about 80's Rock or Disco actually, I listen to classical mostly.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
Classical can be very demanding on the low end.

It is surprising how good it sounds when you add a subwoofer capable of reaching down to 14Hz.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 12 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Violins sound better

with subwoofers.  Dunno why but it's for real IMHO.

 

RG

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Magneplanars and subs

IMO it's unreasonable to expect subterranean bass from a pair of MG-1.6's or .7's. Every Magneplanar I've owned (MG-1, MG-2, MG-3A) or heard (every other model) needs a sub woofer, preferably two. The exceptions being  the MG-20 series and older Tympani models. Even those wouldn't be hurt with the addition of a couple of subs.

Josh Hill
Josh Hill's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 12 2011 - 2:32pm
I don't know, agree with your

I don't know, agree with your overall point, but the Tympanis can do formidable bass and, being dipoles, they're less likely than omnis to excite room modes, so they can do *realistic* bass. It's hard to add a sub without coloring the sound. If I did, it would be blow the lowest room mode and with a very steep FIR filter to keep it in the bottom octave. But I don't think you'd gain anything with acoustical music by adding subs to Tympanis, other than a few dB on 16 Hz pedal notes. When I had 1-D's, the woofers used to bottom out on the cannon shots on the Telarc 1812. But that sort of thing  seems rather marginal unless you're into home theater.

I think Maggies sometimes get a reputation for limited bass that really isn't deserved. Their nominal bass extension ranges from 100 Hz for the MMG-W (which are intended to be used with a sub) down to 25 Hz for the 20.1. Dynamics have a similar range, down to 20 or so.

jackfish
jackfish's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 19 2005 - 2:42pm
The answer to satisfying bass with Magnepans lies with

proper speaker placement ( http://www.cardas.com/pdf/roomsetup.pdf ), implementing a subwoofer that is sealed, servo-controlled and exhibits low-Q, proper subwoofer EQ or preferably adequate room treatments of at least bass traps in the four corners and bass absorption on the front and back walls, and an appropriate crossover point. It is easy to add a subwoofer to planar, quasi-ribbon speakers without coloring the sound. It just has to be the right subwoofer and the right room (or EQ).

I agree that the bass Magneplanars provide is of good quality. But, if one regularly listens to program material that reaches below 50 Hz a proper subwoofer adds an immense improvement to sound quality, larger models excepted

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading