I’ve had Planar speakers since the early eighties and still have a pair of Acoustat Model X’s. The midrange and the High-end are fabulous! The low-end, while accurate, has no push to it. If I play the beginning of DSOTM loud, the heart beat goes rattle rattle, rattle rattle, because it can’t produce the umph of a traditional speaker. I’ve made a bunch of subwoofers over the years and have an old Audio Research EC-2 crossover, but have never got it quite right. The ripple of the Mylar is so much faster than a moving cone!
All the best!
JD
|
I am not married to planar speakers, just to Clarity. What horn system do you like that can approach the clarity of planars?
|
It depends on the amp, of course, but many single ended amps and pushpull amps using just a pair of tubes like 6L6 or KT-66 deliver a full, lush sound without sounding muddy or sluggish. Within their modest power levels, they are quick and dynamic and the sound is "dense"--harmonics are complete and realistic and not lean and thin. I don't like most high powered tube amps with multiple KT88, KT120, KT150 because they tend to have a hard and brittle sound--the initial attack is artificially edgy and not as natural sounding. Most high powered solid state amps sound lifeless to me at modest volume levels. There is also an artificial sounding edginess to the attack of notes that makes them a little bit brittle sounding or as some people put it, there is a "glassy" sheen that seems to be always present.. A good tube amp sounds relaxed and not edgy, yet when the music calls for it, they sound lively and deliver dynamics without sounding hard.
A decent 40 watt amp (e.g., Synthesis A40) should work with the majority of speakers, but, some panel speakers might require a bit more, depending on the setting and circumstances. I don't rule out ANY speaker type, and certainly there are many that I enjoy even when driven by amps that are not my personal ideal amps. It is just a part of juggling different strengths and weaknesses and making the right compromises. I could easily live with something like the 30.7 Magnepans and an Ayre amp, although I still prefer a good horn system and my 5 watt tube amp.
|
@larryi What is it about the low powered tube amps that you like so much?
|
I've owned a few planars over the years-Magneplanar i, Acoustat 1+1, Martin Logan Quest, and I've heard many iterations since. I like what good planar speakers can do--create an enveloping soundstage, deliver clean and clear sound without being unduly harsh or artificially "forced".(no sense of unnatural edginess to the attack of the note). But, like all speakers, there are some areas where they don't quite do so well, such as the requirement to be playing fairly loud to come to life (of course there are exceptions, like the Quad 57), and they are not as dynamic sounding as good horn-based systems. The main issue is that most are not quite efficient enough to play well with the kinds of amps I like the most--low powered tube amps.
|
I have Quad 2905's which create a circular pattern where as the Quad 57's have a linear pattern. If you were to take the panels apart from both speakers, you'd see a remarkable difference. Anyway, the 57's have the best sounding mid range but the 2905's are full range so it's good to have a pair of both.
|
I can only answer your question based upon my ears and brain. I currently own Apogee Divas and Apogee Duetta Signiture ll’s. The Divas are substantially larger and go down to 25 hz compared to the Duetta’s 35 hz. The Divas sound more at ease and more lifelike at any volume. They also draw more current and have a lower ohm rating. They have greater impact on bass and drums. They make female voice and acoustic guitar and electric bass sound more real than any speaker I have heard, including everything at the Stereophile exhibition at San Francisco in 2006, including Wilson’s WAMM! Given the price of the WAMMs, I left the show not feeling the least bit that I was missing out on much. With that said, if given a choice, price not a consideration, I’d take the WAMMs for their overall impact. I haven’t had the benefit of hearing much newer stuff since.
|
All things being equal, yes.
|
I sure like Quads, I went from Quads to small planars 25 years ago. I was a big fan of Infinity's IRS Beta. I had them for 20 years or so. A guy that logs on AG fixed them for me. He is a VMPS guy, so I tried them. WOW for the money. Small planars and ribbons are the best for speed. Some are push only drivers, some are push pull. They show every flaw in my humble setup. WCF bass drivers. 19hz to 26khz so the specs say. They sure make my wife yell, MORE..
|
I can speak from experience, having a pair of KLH Nines in use since 1992. I used a variety of amps with them, including Bedini 25/25's and Futterman OTL's. With the power amp section of the Carver Receiver (125wpc) they had floor-shaking bass power!
|
The KLH Nines (which apparently nobody here has owned/heard) have excellent dynamic range and bass impact - even when used in single pair configuration! They were designed by Roger West (Soundlab) and Arthur Janszen back in the early Sixties. The Nines beat the Quads in the above performance areas due to larger surface area and power handling. Janszen sells restored pairs at very reasonable prices.
|
@Corelli, what dynamic speakers are you using now?
|
I've owned two pair of planar speakers, Apogee Caliper Signatures back in the 1990s, and Janszen Valentina P8 now. The latter are hybrids.
The Apogees were more impressive in the sense of a larger than life image.
The Janszens are more flat (very flat!) in FR, and the dynamic woofers are extremely well integrated. So I prefer them. They have relatively small electrostatic panels.
|
Large planar speakers are the only ones that can reach low frequencies. Little ones with dynamic bass drivers suffer from lack of cohesion through the audio spectrum. Little ones by them selves simply lack bass.
|
Folks, my question is less about planar vs dynamic; it is more about large vs small planar.
|
Like most everything, there is always give and take. There are so many parameters to consider. So blanket statements rarely hold water. I very much enjoyed Magneplaners in years past and still do. But I enjoy a non-planer speaker more.
|
To me accurate connotes measurement. As has been discussed quite a lot by enthusiasts and designers is that perfect flat speakers generally sound bad, sterile, unnatural. Planners tend to be very fast and are capable of reproducing sound well above the range of hearing, which through interaction of harmonics impact sound in the range of hearing creating a bit of magic… commanding one’s attention. I owned some form of planar… and extensively auditioned large Maggie’s and others a lot over fifty years. I switched over to dynamic about twelve years ago and my system started moving much closer to reproducing the nuances live acoustic music. But I also changed an upgraded all of my electronics so, I am not arguing that dynamic hold the top position.
With excellent no holes barred setups large planar, horn, as well as dynamic speakers can reproduce music that is nothing less than miraculous… showing little weakness in speed, tonal balance… etc. The strengths and weaknesses of each category tend to come out in less than ideal (by ideal… I mean great rooms and many $100K, top notch speakers an equipment supporting them), like in the systems most of us own.
If you only are interested in the academic question of frequency response, then I am sure someone will jump in with an answer.
|
It varies a great deal, but usually there’s a tradeoff for planars, and that is that they have poor frequency response performance which is traded for less room interaction and an amazing ability to project an image.
That reduction in room interaction is really _the_ reason for planars.
One can argue however that this reduction in room interaction makes the planars more accurate from a practical stand point. What good is a flat speaker that you can’t hear as flat they argue.
In terms of distortion and frequency response, I haven’t seen a planar speaker since the Apogees that would measure as well as a dynamic speaker without enhancements from DSP.
Having said all of this, planars are worth consideration because what matters is how much you enjoy listening to music, not which is more accurate.
|
yes in theory as well as in practice, although care and quality in implementation matters much in each
most importantly for me, the larger radiating surface gives a sense of ease in how the music is presented, it flows effortlessly, fills the space more uniformly, the music does not seem extruded or fired from a high pressure hose... purveyors of loud music wanting mega-slam and pulsing bass into their chests, rock and roll, electronica etc etc may disagree
|
