I use to own a pair of Mirage M3's (Omnis)circa late 80's, that were very good at putting out a huge deep presentation, very detailed and dynamic with the McIntosh 300w/ch amp. I miss that sound, very wife un friendly though. I regretted the day I sold them. But O well, lesson learned! (don't let your wife make you sell your monoliths) Since then I have moved on to a conventional box speaker and I really like them as well :-) Maggies never grabbed me the way the M3's did, I will say. |
Zd what's behind the speakers and distance to it certainly matters and worth tweaking for owners but I've moved on to omnis and not looking back anymore |
"Planar backwave is not in phase with forward firing wave. As a result, planars can have very holographic imaging when set up right but it does not necessarily sound coherent and natural like an omni."
I don't know if you've ever tried it, but putting some type of room tuning product right behind the panel helps a lot. |
"Planars have a backwave that, because it arrives later than the front output of the speaker, aid the ear/brain system in improving sound source location; IOW imaging and depth. "
All speakers have a backwave. Its more a matter of what frequencies are contained in the backwave and the magnitude. Planars have more of both than most box designs. Omnis also have more of both and also have a more 360 degree radiation pattern as opposed to a simple backwave firing 180 degrees in the opposite direction only.
The omni 360 degree dispersion pattern is more like what occurs when sound is generated in real life. IMHO, omni presentation is more realistic/lifelike in general as a result, but planars are a step in that direction compared to most forward firing box designs.
The wvefront generated by an omni is also phase coherent in all directions which results in a very coherent/natural sound.
Planar backwave is not in phase with forward firing wave. As a result, planars can have very holographic imaging when set up right but it does not necessarily sound coherent and natural like an omni. Its like listening to a gong strike. Very holographic and impressive with lots of sound everywhere but I find I do not enjoy planars nearly as much as I used to when I hear them now that I am acclimated to very high quality omni sound. The coherency is just not there. Except for things that radiate sound like a gong. :^) |
The Mangaplaner 20.7 is one of the better bargains in the speaker world: fast, transparent, full range and not too hard to drive.
The Sound Lab is the state of the art in ESLs, and much easier to drive than Martin Logans, and usually have greater sound pressure capacity as well as deeper bass.
Both speakers have tube and transistor advocates.
Planars have a backwave that, because it arrives later than the front output of the speaker, aid the ear/brain system in improving sound source location; IOW imaging and depth. |
"You cannot get better sound for the money."
That's debatable.
Nothing against the maggies but see discussion above about the inherent differences, strengths and weaknesses.
Bottom line: if you enjoy listening to rock/pop/electronic music and want to feel teh energy of the music as well as hear it, Maggies are NOT a good choice.
If you just want to hear beautiful music sound beautiful, to hell with all the rest then Maggies are hard to beat.
Although there is also the mindset that for beauty in music alone, a simple low wattage 300B SET tube amp with high efficiency speakers is the way to go. There is merit to that argument IMHO. But that is a whole different can of worms, end to end. |
Just thought. Line sources are more efficient as distance, dropping -3db at double distance rather than -6db for point source speakers. The guy/girl in the back row can enjoy.
"Or am I barking up the wrong tree?"
Some designers also attend to the cabinet shape to reduce diffraction (I used the wrong term last post). |
I understand what you're saying Bill, I think Sonus Faber, just for one example, has that philosophy that the cabinet isn't just a holder for the drivers but an organic functioning part of what creates their sound signature. Thanks for the response. |
You have excellent taste. You are on the right track. Check out the magnapan 1.7 for under $2000.00. It is about 5feet tall but has a small footprint of approximately 17" x 2". The sound benefits are real. You cannot get better sound for the money. They sound more like real music than other speakers at this price point. To get the most from these speakers you need to place them in a suitable room. You are need a good amplifier. Good here does not mean expensive. (Eg: Odyssey Khartago extreme for about $1250) Contact the company to find out if the dimensions of your your room is suitable for these speakers. Good luck |
I recently auditioned Sphinx at my local dealer running magnepans. It was a very good match seemingly. The amp had no problem driving them to reasonably high volume. The room was moderately large.
I'm considering Sphinx for use with my smaller ohms which I have ab compared to magnepans at home in the past and think that to be an even better match with more muscle overall.
Can't comment on Martin Logan. Not much experience there. |
Bcgator, I believe that you are correct in describing what many companies try to do, by designing inert cabinets that allow the drivers to work most efficiently without adding cabinet induced coloration. However many companies discover in attempting this that in reality all cabinets have some inherent sound which impacts the speaker's performance. So what some then do is design a cabinet more like a musical instrument, which is tuned so that its resonance is musically coherent rather than of an objectionable nature. There is more than one way to design and engineer a fine speaker, and it often comes down to subjective as well as objective performance goals. |
I realize I'm probably simplifying and generalizing, but aren't companies like Magico, Wilson Benesch, BMC (and I'm sure others I don't even know about) utilizing steel or aluminum cabinets in an effort to build "box" speakers but with such inert cabinets that they eliminate the "box" from the sound? Not that they're trying to replicate panels, of course, but that they're trying to create dynamic speakers that offer the same absence of cabinet coloration that panels enjoy? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? |
Jim, you've received lots of good comments, but one thing that hasn't been addressed which should be considered before embarking on one of these paths is amplification.
Maggies present fairly benign impedance characteristics to the amplifier, even though their impedance magnitude is in most cases nominally 4 ohms. However, they need a lot of power. If you still have and are planning to keep the Rogue Sphinx I recall that you were using not long ago, its 155 watt capability into 4 ohms (per Stereophile measurements) might be marginal (or worse) with a Maggie, depending on listening volume, room size, the dynamic range of the music, etc.
Martin-Logans, on the other hand, do NOT present benign impedance characteristics. As with many electrostatics and electrostatic hybrids, their impedance decreases to very low values in the upper treble region, typically reaching 1 ohm or even less at 20 kHz. With impedance phase angles that are significantly capacitive at many frequencies, which is much more challenging for an amplifier than the Maggie's mostly resistive impedance.
The impedance characteristics of an M-L will result in sonics that are particularly sensitive to the output impedance and other characteristics of the amplifier that is being used. The negligibly small output impedance of most solid state amplifiers (including the Sphinx) will interact with their decreasing impedance at high frequencies in a manner that will give greater emphasis to the upper treble, and perhaps the lower treble as well, in comparison with tube amps. And the tonal balance which will result with tube amps will tend to differ among different tube amps, due to their differing output impedances. And some amps will simply not be able to handle the very low impedance at high frequencies with any kind of good results.
In the absence of an audition, or specific and credible inputs from others, I would not assume that the Sphinx would be happy dealing with a Martin-Logan.
Good luck. Regards,
-- Al
|
Thanks to the members who have responded so far. Many points will be useful in my search for new speakers. I also appreciate the speaker recommendations other than ML's and Maggies which I will check out. Regarding ML, I listened to a pair of ML's EM-ESL electrostats when they first came into the market. They sounded very good, but the highs seemed a bit bright or pinched. Bass was good but not exceptional. Presentation and musicality were first rate
A member recently had a pair for sale on AG, because he is moving to Martin Logan "Theos" which are twice are as expensive as EM- ESL. The Theos are $4995.00 and a bit out of my price range.
I said this before, Martin Logan has a merry-go round of different speakers every 2 years or so, which makes me a bit reluctant abou their products. I remember in 2000-2001 hearing a pair of ML's "Ascent" which were (over) lauded by the audio press; I was not that impressed, or as impressed as much as hearing Aerius I from a decade(?) before
As many members know, planars and stats can be difficult to place and therefore hinky. If you buy retail, you might get the assistance of the dealer, or able to return them if not to the buyer's satisfaction. This becomes even a larger issue if you buy them used....returns are very few and far between on AG or any of the audio marts
*****************************
To Ohnway61, as I just mentioned I have auditioned the ML speakers, including the original CLS which were awesome. I could listen until the shop's business hours, but that will not predict what either planars or stats will sound like at home |
Polarin mentioned OHMs, which I prefer these days over planars as well. OHMs and Walsh style drivers in general are a totally different breed of "box" speaker for many reasons. I replaced my Maggies with OHMs most recently. I hear Magies still on occasion at dealers and gotta say there is nothing I miss about them still. If I did not listen to pop/rock/electronic music as well as all the rest, I might feel differently. Can't speak for other planars, but same true for Electrostats I have heard like QUAD. I wanted the QUAD sound but with all the large scale dynamics as well that I found limited. OHMs pretty much do it all for very reasonable cost that will vary directly with room size only. |
Having owned Maggies and as well big boxes, well...
Generally the planar speakers give full sized images (and boxes miniaturized versions --- even most big boxes) and, as pointed out earlier, you look up at the stage rather than down. In these regards the planar speakers are much, much more realistic sounding. But...
they must be played loud (at or near live acoustic volumes) to have the palpable presence and body to work well. I have never heard a planar speaker do ambient music (background-level volume) very well. they must be driven and have a great deal of amplifier current to do so.
Finally, the Maggies for me had to go for a non-sonic reason (or, an indirect sonic reason). To sound right, they need to be 4-4.5 feet into a room. Not many places accommodate a pair of 3ft by 6 ft panels out 4 to 5 feet into a room. So, unless you have a dedicated listening room that is spacious, room set-up is difficult. Fitting a planer-based system into a regular living area (with other purposes for that room) is not easy and most spouses won't connect with that at all. |
I also like Marty's post. Another advantage is there are no cabinet colorations caused by resonance and reflections.
Small panels have less bass and often employ a dynamic driver that is difficult to integrate in to the sound of the panel. Although I think Sanders does a good job at it, the best I have heard are the large electrostatic speakers. Those have phase advantages; i'm not sure if cone drivers can be as good in that area. To get first hand knowledge of panel speakers listen to more brands than Magenpan and ML. |
Having owned both Maggies (1.5's and MMG's) and Martin- Logans (Aerius) I feel compelled to chime in. Without getting too technical about how they produce sound let me say that their biggest advantage over box speakers is simply NO BOX. They both produce such a natural uncolored sound that when heard for the first time it can be very unsettling to many an audiophile (me included). So much so that some people will simply say "I gotta have these". However, if hard driving power Rock is your thing then please look elsewhere. But for softer Jazz or Steely Dan and such I can't think of anything I'd rather listen to them through than a set of Maggies. I currently run Ohm's simply because they handle anything and everything nicely but if I ever have a third music room I will definitley have some 1.7's for those late night Jazz listening sessions, anyway just my 2 cents... |
I'd agree with Marty that the most distinguishing characteristics is 1) the geometry of the reverberant field and 2) differences in how air is pressurized ie you mostly just hear the music whereas with good dynamic drivers you probably can also feel it when called for. |
It's hard for me to generalize on which type of speaker (planar vs dynamic) produces better timbre, because there's a ton of variation on that front within both types. Some people believe that planars are "faster" and offer more detail, but I wouldn't generalize and would again argue that there's a ton of variation IME in the perceived "detail" delivered by stats vs planar magnetics vs ribbons, and (to a lesser extent) among different designs within each type of planar.
If you're looking for an advantage that's generic to planars, I'd agree that it's mostly related to the dispersion characteristics. The reverberant field usually sounds richer and more natural to me, possibly because there's less variation in horizontal dispersion vs frequency in most planars vs most dynamic speakers. Imaging also differs qualitatively, as does sound staging. However, personal preference is likely to determine which presentation you prefer on those fronts.
I also feel that dynamic designs have some common advantages (bass impact, for one), so it's back to trade-offs.
Have fun with the search. |
A big benefit of panels for me is one that isn't talked about enough: Full size images! A grand piano is HUGE, and a good recording of one sounds that way through panels. Through most boxes they sound miniaturized. Panels also create a soundstage you are looking up at, rather than down on. The best deal in panels is the Eminent Technology LFT-8b. They aren't that big, 1' wide by 5' tall, and match better with tube amps than do Maggies, being an 8 ohm load rather than 4. |
It's all about recreating the reverberant field. To do it effectively the speaker needs to produce full range sound (woofers in addition to tweeters) through the reverberant section and at a level approaching that of the front primary driver level. |
Sunnyjim, I have been a long time ( 20+ yr) owner and advocate of Magnepans. I picked up a used pair of Coincident Triumph Extreme II monitors and they outperformed my MG 3.7Rs in nearly every respect. Coherence, accuracy of timbre, and resolution were all clearly superior. The coincidents matched the Maggies with respect to tight, fast, articulate mid bass. I found the low frequency roll off started higher, but was a more gentle slope with the coincidents, so that there was actually more useful information below 40 Hz with the coincidents. The only aspect where the magpies were superior was in the range covered by the maggie ribbons.
The Coincidents with stands are substantially less expensive than the 3.7Rs. I highly recommend that you consider the Coincident TE IIs, especially if you are interested in a small footprint. |
If it's not large it won't play loudly or have bass.
Rather than trying to describe how they sound I strongly urge you to go listen to a demo. |
