I disagree with some comments that full range ribbon planars need volume to shine. This is a matter of the amp providing ample current. I have the Apogee Duetta II Signatures (about to be completely updated by Music Technology). They sound excellent at very low volumes as well. The whole frequency range is full and very engaging just as it is at louder volumes. I’m using a beast BAT VK-600 solid state amp with bat pack for extra joules of energy when needed (coupled with a BAT VK-5i tube preamp). Don’t get me wrong the large panels such as the Full Range and Diva are also very special speakers, but they have added challenges where they tend to have a dark sound to them if not optimally matched with the proper amplification and cabling. Also, they are more sensitive to the listening space and require a large room to truly shine. While the Duetta Signatures go down to around 28 Hz (stock) the FR and The Diva go to the lower 20s. These large panels also need multiple amps and with that comes the added expense and additional layer of complexity trying to get amp synergy. I like the flexibility and relatively forgiving nature of the Duetta Sigs. One thing I will say is like all Apogees they are very sensitive when it comes to speaker cables. I’ve always used the Symos Jason Bloom recommended and have been extremely happy with them since ‘88.
Do larger planar speakers produce more accurate sound?
Planar speakers generate sound pressure via vibrating membrane panels. The excursion of the membrane x radiating area= sound pressure. This would mean that for a given sound level, membranes have smaller excursion in larger planar speakers than in smaller ones. Does this mean that larger speakers will produce more accurate sound?
I am not talking about the obvious benefits of the larger speakers in terms of low frequency production, so let's not get into that.
My first Magnepan experience was with the MMGW, the small wall-mounted speaker that’s maybe 38”x10”. A friend had them driven by a triode tube amp of maybe 40-50 watts. No bass to speak of, I think about 100hz is it. But the sound! It just came out of the air. A violin was simply a violin, a piano, etc. So I ordered a pair and found a nice little subwoofer to go with them. At some point a familiar, favorite piece of music played and it just grabbed me emotionally like never before. So that’s what they can do, large or small. That mid-range where so much of music (and life) resides is what they do best. I still have them in my living room, where my wife was thrilled they were so inconspicuous (off-white covers) and didn’t need floor space. I have 1.7s in my listening room with 200 watts and life is good. Sure, when I was auditioning them I was drawn to another setup in another room. Wow, what realism. Oh, $50k+ Wilsons. Very nice, but I kept the $1,400 Maggie 1.7s. |
Some do have that sort of nasal coloration, some do not. I am not a fan of most of the current production compression driver systems (e.g., Klipsch, JBL), but systems made with some very special drivers from the like of Western Electric, International Projector Company, Yoshimura Laboratories, G.I.P. Laboratories, Goto, ALE, and Cogen, for example, coupled with the right horn can sound great and not sound like megaphones. It is the bane of serious horn fans that the most popular and common horn systems, like those from Klipsch, JBL and Altec, do have that tendency if one does not work to reduce that problem and select the right components to complement these drivers. It is also VERY unfortunate that the best of these drivers can be extremely expensive. I have a fried seriously looking at a single $14,000 driver which he would buy on-line in a heartbeat if the seller would do something as simple as take a dc resistance measurement. |
The Levinson HQD system was something I heard MANY years ago, so I cannot say how it would compare with other systems. It was more than stacked Quad 57s; it had a 24" Hartley woofer and Kelly ribbon tweeters. At the time, I thought it sounded okay, but not decidedly better than anything else I heard. More recently, I've heard stacked Quads assembled by MyEmia that incorporate bespoke tube amps that take advantage of the high impedance of the electrostatic panels by not utilizing the kind of output transformers one would normally need to lower the output impedance of the amp to match conventional drivers; the stacked Quads delivered surprising volume and bass impact for a speaker otherwise known for their deficiencies in these qualities. The big Soundlabs are indeed very nice sounding speakers, but I would not pick them over the better horn systems I've heard (custom made speakers). I would also like to hear the new Beveridge hybrid electrostatic/dynamic systems; I heard the originals and like it except for the overblown bass response. |
I've read and heard folks say that they believe the Levinson stacked Quad 57's with the ribbon tweeters to be better sounding than Soundlabs. I cannot make that claim myself, I just wanted to put that out there. My conversations in the past regarding Soundlabs were relevant to the overall build quality of their speakers. I cannot understand why Quad hasn't seen Soundlabs as a guiding example in how to build an electrostatic speaker correctly. A friend of mine is currently building the Levinson 57 stacks, so I wait with anticipation to hear them once they're finished. |
Much has to do with design the larger the diaphragm. The better the bass Soundlabs is the best although big with their excellent autoformers their panel has different size segments for high frequencies,mids and bass you truly need at least the bid model $15 k + to get the speed and realism of a true full range stat. I have owned Everything out there pretty much . Apogee ribbons with sub bass in the mini grands was the fastest dynamic panel I ever had , for a true Electrostst The Big sound labs are great if you have the room they are not as power hungry as I thought they are excellent , the. MBL Omni directional speakers are the only ones I prefer more and don’t need as much space., even their 126 monitors with good subs Giant killer setup !! |
Larger usually sound nicer (not saying that’s the same as ’accurate’). They’re not so soon stressed to their limits to produce a certain SPL, they operate more ’relaxed’. Larger size is able to create a wonderful soundstage, almost 3D, and with height involved. On my maggies, with eyes closed, subtle sounds like a cymbal or a shaker, can seem to originate top left, or half height right, very funny. It can be imagination, but when playing the same song again, it again is the same experience. You didn’t want to talk about base but of course that’s a great part of sounding nice, and of ’accuracy’. However, it’s not just size, there’s also the crossover filter, with magnetostas the magnets, with electrostats the electronics, the build quility, and ... important ... the moving foil. You’ll seldom see a planar the size of a door ... at some point it becomes troublesome to keep the foil tight and moving as a whole without ripples. ’Accurate’ need not translate to ’sounds nice’. Some people love equipment that’s measurably less accurate.(think vinyl or tube amplifiers). |
That video title mirrors my sentiments having owned the Magnepan .7s for a couple years in various setups. With the caveat of careful placement and quality electronics, I’m doubtful if there is any better speaker value (new that is). Even those familiar with the flagship Maggies owe it to themselves to audition these panels. The dynamic capability of the .7s can actually put many box speakers to shame. How many times have you read that said about a Magnepan? I drive mine with the Benchmark LA4 and AHB2. The amp has zero trouble driving them to high SPLs in my ~3000 cu ft room. Their “musicality” is excellent too. Has to be the best budget panel speaker considering the ease of drive and dynamics. |
Worth considering where it pertains to the Quad 57’s; https://www.quad-musik.de/index.php/en/products/electrostatics/esl57-qa |
My Quad’s, only my ASR. I’ve heard the Martin Logan CLX’s with I believe an Ayre amp and preamp. I’ve heard the 63’s and 57’s with an NAD and possibly Mark Levinson’s, hard to remember. I’m hoping to hear the 57’s with a vintage Marantz tube amp, not the 8b’s but I wish. I’m planning on ordering a pair of Magnepan LRS’s for when my Quad’s are with the repair tech. When I bought my 2905’s, it was right after AIG opened their factory in China. The adhesive they used for the louvre over top of the perforated sheet was too sparse. So that adhesive joint is more prone to breaking and so far I’ve had to replace eight panels between both speakers. AIG panels are now using more adhesive at those joints and they’re spraying the circuit boards with an additional protective layer to minimize arcing so hope for the best. |
chungjh, The ASR Emitter 2 Exclusive is what I have and I've never regretted purchasing it. Recently, I had some issues with the output relays but that seems to be resolved. I've replaced the acid gel batteries once since I bought it in 2011. The soundstage is very wide. It actually matches up with my Quad 2905's perfectly. Though admittedly, the Quad's are a pain to deal with. The ASR detail is more than I've ever heard with any other system. It is a very musical combination. Non fatiguing. Pitch black background and well balanced. I also own the smaller ASR phono amp. The designer/manufacturer is remarkable. He'll stay on the phone or will email with you for as long as you need. He's very attentive. Finding the output relay issue required some time and he always got back to me immediately. Anyway, it's a great piece and I'd recommend it to anyone but if your stereo requirements are more modest, then the smaller Emitter 1 might be a better fit. |
@goofyfoot How do you like your ASR? Resolution? How often do you have to replace the batteries? |
Great review on the New Pure Audio Project Trio 15 Coax 10 Open Baffle Speakers https://www.dagogo.com/pureaudioproject-trio15-coax10-open-baffle-speakers-review/ |
@arion I apologize for the lack of clarity. By "accurate", I meant realism. Sor the sake of simplicity, let's focus on electrostatics. To generate the same SPL with smaller radiating surface, it would mean greater excursion of the membrane than with larger radiating surface. I would think that the requirement of greater excursion would mean loss of tension (over many years) in the membrane and less resolution. Unless membranes require large excursion to produce higher resolution. |
Disclosure: Speaker designer (planars too) and Manufacturer. The OP's question is: Do larger planar speakers produce more accurate sound? The challenge of answering the question is that "accurate sound" is not well defined. If he is asking about accuracy of the waveform produced by a planar transducer compared to the input signal, within the frequencies and amplitude the transducers are designed for and everything else being equal the answer is no. An argument can easily be made that smaller planar traducers are more "accurate". Most of what is being discussed here by others is about dispersion patterns, room interaction and other design choices. Furthermore, "planar" is not defined here. There are several types of planars.
|
Well, I don’t know about all that, but I DO know that IN MY SHOP, we listened to every box, electrostat, etc. speaker available and the only ones that sounded like the instruments we were playing live were the Maggies. Yes, we played trumpet solo and then switched back and forth between trumpet solo recordings, same with clarinet, guitar (all versions) and (unfortunately due to size of the shop) electric piano, and drums. When we switched back and forth, we could not tell the difference (behind a scrim, so no visuals here) between the live instruments and the Maggies (driven by Audio Research gear). Solved the question for me, BUT, many of my customers’ ROOMS were not amenable to Maggies, so they sounded not good IN THEIR ROOMS. SO, yes, they give the most realistic sound stage, etc., and NO, they do not shake the windows with over-driven distorted bass, which many crave, for a few minutes, anyway unless you are 17. Electrostats like Quads and KLH and RTR’s give listening fatigue after a very short time. Here is the answer: Have your dealer set up the Maggies IN YOUR ROOM. IF you have super-high-quality hardware and source information, you will never go back. If this is not for you, buy what you like. By the way, I have always wondered where all those box manufacturers got the BRILLIANT idea to make their speakers tall "all of a sudden". Funny how that happened, huh? Cheers! |
Well actually I made the opposite claim.
Super poor example. I can’t find published measurements, and you are literally cherry picking a single $25,000 multi-way planar speaker. Trying to refute my claim of "general" with a very specific and unusual planar isn’t really a good way to get to clear thinking my friend. You also seem to have completely ignored my opening caveats:
So I can be 100% correct and the CLX may still be unusually good performers. There's no conflict in these two statements, but I would love to see a frequency response chart just for giggles. |
You say in general panels are as flat as cones. F'rinstance Martin Logan CLXs are +-3dB from 56 to 23000 Hz. How much flatter would you like? They sure sound good as well. I have used panels for around 40 years now. I don't miss the last octave, yes and octave from 55Hz to 27.5Hz, although bottom B on a Steinway Model D (the lowest note in music) is 30.87Hz. For those that do, get subwoofers. |
@helomech: If you want to hear a Maggie with midbass punch, try to find a pair of the 3-panel Tympani models. Harry Pearson mated the two bass panels from a Tympani with the m/t panels from the Infinity IRS to create his own "super speaker". The best midbass I've ever heard was that produced by my pair of Tympani T-IVa. But the Tympani bass panels need: 1- To be braced. Mye makes a stand for the Tympani. One guy on the Planar Speaker Asylum runs a plank of wood from his Tympani panels to the wall behind them! 2- To be placed at least 5' from the wall behind them. However, they may be placed right up against the side walls, which has the added benefit of eliminating the front-to-back dipole cancellation on the sides of the panels against the walls. Free bass! 3- A LOT of power, the more the better. A note to planar lovers, whether of the magnetic-planar variety (Magnepan, Eminent Technology), ESL, or ribbon: The Tympani bass panel is a GREAT sub for your speaker. |
I have been enchanted with Quads… old and new. My friend and dealer added the line about 15 years ago. I loved them, stopped buy several times, considered buying them… but didn’t. In fact everyone loved them… he carried them for years… and never sold a single pair… not one. I was shocked to hear this a few days ago when we were chatting. |
I have Magnepan .7s in a larger room than that and the bass is plentiful for my needs/taste. They don’t extend below 45Hz or so but still deeper than most bookshelf-type speakers and even some towers. This is the only Magnepan I’ve heard that can actually produce midbass “punch.” I suspect it’s because it has a larger bass panel than the smallest Maggies yet is still a 2-way design. I once owned 1.7is and they had almost no dynamics in the midbass. |
chungjh, my understanding is that Music Direct will stop distribution of Quad ESL’s. I don’t know if they will drop Quad all together. Just realize that if you purchase the 2912’s or any Quad electrostatic speaker, that the panels will eventually need replacing and if you have a technician do it, then you’ll have to ship the entire speaker. The 2912’s are about 100 pounds each. As far as AIG and their future production of Quad panels and Quad speakers, I am uninformed but I believe that someone will build the panels since all Quad ESL owners are in the same boat and will need to replace panels for their 63’s, 898’s, 2905’s and 2912’s. The 57’s have a different circuit board/panel design from the others. If anyone finds out who the new USA distributor for Quad speakers will be, please share that in a post. Us Quad owners are somewhat at their mercy. |
Hi @chungjh
That (obviously) begs the question: how big a room? Since you asked for an opinion, mine is to go with the next model up (745) in the SL lineup. It will definitely fill the room up and if you listen to orchestral music, it will definitely offer a more plausible simulation of a full orchestra. I like what I've heard of the Quad, but IMO it's no match... |
what @jjss49 said! FWIW, I own Soundlabs and previously owned Quads, heard a million Maggies in many systems. Small planar = no bass. That's why so many have tried cone woofer hybrids, |
The smaller planar diaphragm has less mass to contend with. Also, since planars behave as an imperfect line-source in practicality, the larger panel will have a greater total of interference filtering. I haven’t compared measurements of say, the Magnepan LRS and 1.7i, but I would bet the former gets a little closer to textbook ideals. However, the average listener will probably perceive the larger of two panels to sound more life-like, all else being equal. |
the most realistic and accurate sound i've ever heard was at definitive hifi in seattle, circa 1982 [about 40 years ago], a pair of maggie tympani IIIs were dominating one end of an acoustically treated room, on the other end were two [dorm room] refrigerator-sized monoblock class A amps that doubled as room heaters. i was sweating in there but the sound [from a direct-disc cathedral pipe organ {Bach} recording] was utterly enveloping with a "you are THERE!" feeling. the surface noise of the record floated in a little cloud a few feet in front of the speakers. being that i was not rich, i could not afford them but i did get the smallest ones they sold and those are in my collection today. in smaller rooms they [smg/mmg] did a lot of the "you are there" trick. |
My experience has been, there is generally less interaction between The Room (side wall and vertical especially) and The Speaker, with regard to Plannar vs Cone. Plannars having fewer reflection interactions, Cones having more. There is however, a marked difference in the interaction within The Room when comparing Large Planars and Small Planars, in the same Room. The size of The Speaker should be appropriate for the size of The Room...
|
speaking of line arrays, you should try a set of smaller maggies, quite affordable... and something definitely worth your experiencing - they are superb in what they do "accuracy" in our hobby, of course, has no meaningful reference, so it is actually totally subjective ... as is the manufactured notion of stereo 'imaging', which, while very appealing when presented well in a good system, is also artificial... line arrays supposedly do the imaging thing less well, compared to more point-source style transducers |
I disagree with the comment about room interactions. Most planar speakers are dipole and actually are designed for room interactions. You send an identical sound wave into a wall or corner and it is irrelevant if that sound wave was generated from a planar or cone speaker. I agree completely with the comments about uniformity and ease of presentation, imaging. I also agree with enveloping sound stage without being ever being harsh and yes they need power and dBels for all that to happen. I've had visitors happily enveloped at SPL of 90 - 95 dB and never look at me like - what the hell. I didn't hear QUICK mentioned and especially in the mid bass there is nothing like them. The couch, chair and floor will vibrate - musically and instantly. Just don't expect anything to shake and rumble even with larger planars. But shake and rumble generally ain't music anyway!! |
Larger speakers play louder, but the Magnepan LRS is really a remarkable speaker and its accuracy is quite high, in my opinion. I am a musician (guitar, mandolin, uke) and regularly play five time per month with a group. My experience is with 3 models of Maggies, and a friend has some Martin Logans. I have built may and use open baffle speakers in my big system. Large doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. |
If by “clarity” you mean an absence of resonance that makes for a murky or muddled sound, panels and compression midrange drivers can be very good. The very best compression drivers, such as those made by Western Electric, International Projector Company, YL, G.I.P., Goto, manage to substantially avoid nasal resonance that color some compression drivers and deliver clear, detailed and well textured sound with a sense of ease. These drivers must be matched to very nimble and clear sounding woofers. The woofers that seem to work best have light cones, and pleated paper surrounds. The downside to such woofers is a limited excursion that mean they don’t deliver extremely deep bass. This kind of bass is similar to that of large panel speakers which also don’t go extremely deep. |
