There are extensive threads on the Maggie HK/Limage room placement on the Planar Asylum discussion forum. I have tried it many, many times over the past few years. The benefits IN MY ROOM (14X20) are phenomenal, jaw dropping soundstage and depth. The images of every instrument simply float behind the plane of the speakers. Every Maggie owner with a shoe boxed sized room should experiment with it. Note to those not familiar with the set up, it requires the panels to be about 40%+ out from FW, close to the side wall and perfectly parallel with the FW (no toe in at all) with tweets in.
That said, I never stick with it long term in my room. I believe my room may be a little too wide. Regardless, when I measure the frequency response in my room it shows a large hump from about 500 to 1khz, followed by a cavernous drop around the crossover range, before recovering over 3 or 4khz. Wendell at Magnepan advises that the "i" models should be used with the tweeters further away than the woofers. My experience with the 3.7 i reinforces this recommendation. Failure to do so almost always creates a suck out at the crossover between mids and highs, and a glare in the middle midrange. The Limage set up does exactly this in my room. I had similar problems with an older pair of Maggie IIIa's, indeed the midrange emphasis was even more extreme.
My preferred set set up in my room is either tweets out about 7.5 feet from FW with the tweets about 83% as far apart as I am from each other as I am from them, or with the speakers further apart but tweets in with a LOT of toe in. The ratio is again around 83% or so. In every case the woofer panels need to be closer than the tweets -- about two inches is often best. Again this leads to minimal toe in if tweets are out, and extreme toe in with tweets in.
I understand that that some people try the Limage set up and never go back. Their rooms may be better for it (narrower or less damped) or they may be less affected or bothered by the frequency effects of tweets substantially closer than mid and bass panel.
Droleg, could you perhaps share the frequency chart you are getting in your room? Are you able to avoid these pitfalls in your room somehow?
That said, I never stick with it long term in my room. I believe my room may be a little too wide. Regardless, when I measure the frequency response in my room it shows a large hump from about 500 to 1khz, followed by a cavernous drop around the crossover range, before recovering over 3 or 4khz. Wendell at Magnepan advises that the "i" models should be used with the tweeters further away than the woofers. My experience with the 3.7 i reinforces this recommendation. Failure to do so almost always creates a suck out at the crossover between mids and highs, and a glare in the middle midrange. The Limage set up does exactly this in my room. I had similar problems with an older pair of Maggie IIIa's, indeed the midrange emphasis was even more extreme.
My preferred set set up in my room is either tweets out about 7.5 feet from FW with the tweets about 83% as far apart as I am from each other as I am from them, or with the speakers further apart but tweets in with a LOT of toe in. The ratio is again around 83% or so. In every case the woofer panels need to be closer than the tweets -- about two inches is often best. Again this leads to minimal toe in if tweets are out, and extreme toe in with tweets in.
I understand that that some people try the Limage set up and never go back. Their rooms may be better for it (narrower or less damped) or they may be less affected or bothered by the frequency effects of tweets substantially closer than mid and bass panel.
Droleg, could you perhaps share the frequency chart you are getting in your room? Are you able to avoid these pitfalls in your room somehow?