I'm enjoying this thread.When others post about actual experience even when it's the opposite of what I believe to be true,I'm open to learning more about it.Instead of "Oh that will never work!" I'm in the camp of "Hmm,gotta investigate further".
Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
2,164 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
It’s a fluid situation in the room. The whole dynamics of speaker locations, listener position, the size and shape of the room and type and number of room treatments, among other variables, combine to determine the sound quality, all other things being equal. But as I pointed out in my last post, all this *uncertainty* changes when you employ the speaker set-up track on the XLO Test CD or similar Test CD. Using your own ears - move a little/listen a little - to try and find optimum speaker locations is bound to fail. You might find locations that you deem better than when you started but they won’t be the very best locations. There are a million possibilities. People get it into their heads that speakers should be far apart for a wider soundstage and toed in toward the listener. You will discover when using the Test CD that is actually not the case at all. Generally, most speakers should be closer together rather than far apart. In any case, for those who experiment with room treatment and other tweaks like vibration isolation, etc., you need to re-visit the speaker set up track *every time* to add or change room treatments or tweaks. Otherwise, things can easily get out of control. Complexity is not your friend. In fact, the best course of action - remove all room treatments from the room, and using the out-of-phase track as a guide, slowly introduce the room treatments back into the system, moving the speakers as required to get the best results from the out-of-phase track. Then, placement of diffusers, absorbers, Helmholtz resonators, tiny bowl resonators, crystals, what have you, is a snap. It also helps to have a SPL lever meter and test frequency track on hand to be able to map out the 3 dimensional space of the room to get a handle on where room treatments should be placed initially. For example, Tube Traps are sometimes best when placed a foot or two *away* from the room corner. It depends on where the standing wave sets up in a given room. There’s also the empty box trick for locating standing waves and similar sound pressure peaks in the room that can be employed. |
Hi bdp24, sorry! You’ve probably noticed by my writing I have a mild form of dyslexia. I use to enjoy having a ghost writer, then when I started my own forum and he passed away I was like, sorry folks! My writing skills make me laugh when I read back through but it makes for good humor for my friends to have something to tease me about. Also, I do enjoy reading your posts using your set as a reference point. Terrible player that I am I’ve had a few fairly nice setups and am like a kid being around drummers, their kits and talent. Your also correct that I’m not so much into diffusers. I’m more of a direction and zoning guy. Even though some folks call my SoundShutters a diffusion type product, it’s more of a wall zoning device. The Areoplanes are another zoning tool that some put in the diffusion camp, but they’re really about organizing the zones and not diffusing them. Have you ever seen one of my SS walls? I do work a lot with back waves and even build special SAM walls made to go behind panels. mg |
MG, I (bdp24, not dbp24; bdp for black diamond pearl---my favorite vintage drum shell finish, and 24 for the diameter of my bass drums in inches) intentionally didn’t include your acoustical products, fine as they are (I have your Room Tunes, Corner Tunes, and Echo Tunes), in my list of those to use with planars because I was speaking specifically in terms of diffusion of their rear wave. You don’t offer QRD or Skyline type diffusers, do you? |
Here's a little bit of the more (you can do all these tests yourselves). Do your echo tests. Did you know that a first reflection test only works if you are outside in a flat open area with one single wall set up? The size of the wall and frequency played at the wall will show you which frequencies actual reflect and reflect intact. As soon as a second wall is put up (attached to the first wall) the reflection is altered. Add a third wall and you will have the development of pressure zones as opposed to reflections. By the time you have 6 walls the frequencies that will reflect in the room are. Mid to high frequencies in an echoslap and selective high frequencies in a wall reflection pattern. Think about how far you can go, when you get out from underneath these audiophile prescribed myths. Keep in mind that the folks making these myths are folks who themselves are only theorizing. If they haven't gone and done they are doing the same thing that the "talkers" here are. I remember when Harry took his flashlight and came up with the first reflection thing. Cute, but it wasn't real. There's a big difference between drawing drawings and talking theory vs actually doing. mg |
Your almost there dbp24. 5 or 6 more years and you might be to the point of adding me to your list, lol. It’s tough isn’t it when you have this idea of someone in your head and your finding out they aren’t what you thought :) You’ll get there we all do. I want to ask you guys something and I don’t want you to answer with audiophile-isms. Instead of thinking about acoustics in such general terms why don’t you get more specific? The cool thing about acoustical, mechanical and electrical is how they are all part of each other. HEA has tried to make cookie cutters to make things easier to sell but in doing so they fail to cover the variables. Let me give you a few examples. In 1989 when I designed and built my testing facility we did several different structures with the same measurements so we could study the surface effect among many other topics. The first rooms were built on the same slab inches apart from each other. Same construction materials and even the drywall screw patterns were the same, and using the same tension per screw. We measured the rooms to try to get them as close as possible from a starting point. As a point of reference I used long time pals at Audio-Technica to do my anechoic measuring at their place in Akron Ohio in exchange for them visiting my tunes, plus 2 of them owned speakers I made for them. (nice to have friends) We tested many different variables in the audio chain and quickly came to the conclusion that at best testing is a snap shot approach to a continuum. This was nothing new as I came to the same conclusions in Atlanta in the early 80’s and further back in Miami and Europe in the 70’s. Audio is not a tape measurer and the more you experience audio the more you want to throw out the rule book and cut to the listening chase. back to the 2 rooms When we did surfaces testing in the two rooms we chose, there are a few things we did that might help you guys understand some variables. 1) when changing paint types the rooms performed differently 2) when changing temps and or humidity different sound 3) adding objects to the room, different again 4) different flooring, different sound 5) how long the signal played, different 6) changing the wall surface type (dry wall to wood to plaster) all different 7) diffusion, different 8) trapping, different 9) dampening, different 10) tuning, different The list goes on, but lets get to speaker placement. With any of the changes above (except for tuning) we found there was no two speaker locations that were the same. With any change, such as hard wood to carpet, the speakers’ locations changed. Even different brands of carpet and padding required speaker placement changes. We found that any and all speaker placement suggestions by the manufacturers to be completely off. We even went to the manufacturers facilities and found the recommended placements were not accurate. In the case of panel speakers, the difference in setup in a plaster walled house and drywalled house are completely different. We also found there is no such thing as "first wall reflection", the way the audio folks describe it. Rooms are mostly made up of Pressure Zones not Reflecting Points. Reflecting points usually stay within a paralleled echo pattern. Remember when I introduced the clap test. there’s more mg |
| Post removed |
My 5’/10ms figure was suggested as the minimum distance a planar should be expected to need for anyone contemplating such a speaker. Of course reflections are more than a single line from the back of the speaker to the wall behind the speaker, and then theoretically back to the speaker, and then theoretically to the listener. The fact remains, however, that if you position a planar closer than 5’ from the wall behind it, there will be the very real possibility of negative consequences. If you have ten feet to spare, all the better! If you have less than five feet, you have been warned. I have had Maggies and QUADs 3’ from the wall, and have found 5’ to provide a definite improvement. I have never had 10’, but would sure like to! But remember, it is the 10ms delay between the front and rear waves that is important, not the 5’ distance. You can create that 10ms delay by any means you choose; if heavy tow-in causes the rear wave to reflect off more surfaces, thereby delaying its arrival at your ears to 10ms or more in relation to the front wave, great! By the way, that 5’/10ms figure was not pulled out of thin air, it is the inevitable consequence of the behavior of sound---physics, and the brains processing of sound arriving at the ears from the same direction but at different times. "Toeing-in" a planar speaker provides benefits in a couple of ways, one of which is to decrease the direct reflection off the wall coming straight back at the speaker; toe-in scatters the rear wave, but not as effectively and predictably as do properly designed and built true diffusers (RPG, ASC, GIK, DIY, etc.). |
The best sound and best stereo imaging will occur for the case when the most diffuse sound is obtained using the out of phase track. Assuming your system is in Correct Polarity to begin with. See last sentence. You should hear the sound coming from all around you, from no particular direction. When you get as close as possible to that situation with the system out of phase, after carefully moving the speakers a little at a time from an initial position about 4 feet apart, that’s where the absolute best speaker locations will be. Of course the out of phase track will also highlight whether your system is in correct or reverse Polarity, also nice to know. However, it might very well not be possible to obtain this magical case where the sound is coming at you equally from all directions, no matter where the speakers are. That’s because the room is not treated enough or not treated correctly. Fortunately, the out of phase track allows one to redo room treatments, as required, to have better success with the out of phase track. |
| Post removed |
Rather than just guessing, I don’t know why people don’t adopt a sure thing. The out of phase track on Test CDs like the XLO Test CD is just the ticket for finding the absolute best locations for any speaker in any room. And with any level of room treatment, from zero to $20,000. As you improve room acoustics over time the track will allow you keep track and find the best locations as you progress. It’s fool proof. Hel-loo! Trying to calculate or guesstimate or move a little/ listen a little will not work. They will provide only local maximums. You need a guaranteed method. Trial and error methods are like trying to solve x simultaneous equations in x + n unknowns. Don’t be a cube, rube. Go ape! 🦍 |
| Post removed |
One thing I can contribute to this discussion happens to be where the subjects of planar loudspeakers and technical facts (at least those posited above by kosst) overlap. Though they are my over-all preferred design, there are very valid objections to be made against planars (as kosst has done), and reasons to not like them. That’s fine. But there were some statements made about planars that are simply not true: 1- ESL’s and magnetic-planars should not be grouped together in terms of the load they present to the power amp. ESL’s have an impedance profile that varies wildly as a function of frequency (fancy term ;-), magnetic-planars (Magneplanars, Eminent Technology LFT’s) do not. ESL’s are an extremely capacitive load, magnetic-planars an almost purely resistive one. Consequently, ESL’s and magnetic-planars present very different challenges to power amps. That’s why Roger Sanders makes two versions of his Magtech amp---one for ESL’s, one for magnetic-planars. 2- Planars interact with the room in very different ways than do non-planars (or, more accurately, non-dipoles), but some of those ways are actually advantageous. For instance, as a result of their line source behavior, dipoles interact less with the room in terms of ceiling and floor reflections, a potentially good thing. Additionally, because of the cancellation to either side of a dipole (where the front and rear wave meet out-of-phase), planars create less side wall reflections, and the eigenmodes created by the room width dimension are less excited by a planar than by a non-planar, both again a potentially good thing. However, the rear wave of planars presents a number of challenges to users. To prevent comb-filtering (too complicated to go into in depth here), planars need to be well away from the wall behind them. Three feet has long been considered the minimum, but that has been found to be insufficient, five feet being much better. Five feet creates a 10 millisecond delay between the front and rear wave (sound travels at roughly 1’/ms)---5’ from the rear of the speaker to the wall, 5’ from the wall back to the planar. 10ms is considered the minimum time required between two acoustic events for them to be perceived as separate events, rather than a smeared single one. The rear wave reflection itself can be dealt with either by absorption or diffusion, or a combination of both. A "too lively" room may benefit from absorption, a "too dead" one from diffusion. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I've never had the opportunity to hear Maggies or Soundlabs,though I would love to after reading owners descriptions.If I ended up with a pair sounds like it would be quite the aesthetic challenge:)I like my living/listening room to look good and sound good.On the other hand it's pretty much a dedicated room now but furnished so any visitors will feel comfortable(I think:) |
| Post removed |
I sure miss my Soundlab M1 speakers. They were spooky real and so natural sounding. Very special speakers and I have owned many. I have to say they are at the very top of my list. So musical and meaty. However, thry just take over a room aesthetically. That is the only downside I can think of. I lost my dedicated room and just no way these will ever be in our living room. I will never forget the wonderful music they produced. |
| Post removed |
@kosst_amojan Your last post says more about you than the person you are aiming your flamethrower at, in this case MG. His questions get right to the heart of the matter at hand, and you failed to answer. To generalize about the sound of all planars is pretty worthless. To say you don't like them and mention that you almost bought a pair is pretty worthless. To say, "They don't sound realistic and they have serious dispersion and room interaction issues." is worse than worthless, it's just plain wrong and does a disservice to the OP. My Sound Labs sound more realistic to me than dozens of other speakers I've owned(e.g. Nolas, Silverlines, Vandersteens, Thiels, Von Schweikerts, Avalons, Quads, Alons, Merlins to name a few) and hundreds more I've demoed. When it comes to serious room dispersion and interaction issues, that varies widely by brand/model. Sure some are "head in a vice", like the old InnerSounds. But the Sound Labs have some of the best measured in room off-axis response you will find. Just a few days ago, a friend who does room acoustical analysis and treatment professionally was here measuring performance of the Sound Labs with his testing gear. He measured on and off-axis at 15, 30 & 45 degrees at 3ft, 5ft and listening position(12ft.) using his omni-mic and pc software. He told me that the off axis performance in room was better than most dynamic speakers and far superior to a pair of planar Apogee Stages + sub that he recently measured. Granted, this is in a treated room with a combo of bass traps, absorptive panels and diffusion set up in Live End/Dead End fashion as recommended by Dr. West at Sound Lab. Some of the results are attributable to the benefit of working on the room, but much of it is because Sound Labs and many other dipoles are less affected by side wall, floor and ceiling reflections than most other speakers. Granted, impact of the wall behind the speakers is great and the wall behind the listener does somewhat come into play. So you've got to attack the wall behind the planars with great amounts of absorption and ideally a bit of diffusion. That's a bit of my experience measuring and listening to planars. So instead of throwing shade at everyone, why don't you share what you've measured, what you actually listened to and what you learned from putting 2 + 2 together? That might actually help someone, including the OP. What I anticipate is a snarky reply belittling me or pretty much everyone. Please prove that assumption wrong. Cheers, Spencer |
| Post removed |
I don’t want to leave out Maggies and the others either. When I read people trying to criticize the sound of these great speaker designs I shake my head, because for those of us in the know, we have actually lived with the exchange and interaction these have with the room. Once you have not only learned but have created the interaction yourself there’s a knowledge (wisdom) that puts you in a club that goes way beyond "talk". Listening to a Maggie setup incomplete for the skilled Maggie listener is like ringing the dinner bell for us. Why is simple, we’ve been there. Those triggers go off in our heads and our mind’s eye is redesigning the room cause we know "that" sound is there and it’s just a matter of unleashing it on the room’s acoustics. This is the one place I say to Hombre "be careful". If you are just going to throw your speaker into the room you may not get that magic you mentioned earlier. You could very well place a speaker in the room and get that magic or you could just as easily open a can of worms that might take you out of the fun listening game for months or even years. That’s why I asked, if you’ve got perfect consider the risk of moving away from perfect to something that might require some serious adjusting. Again it may not, but I’m glad to see real (active) users jumping in. They could very well save the day for you, as well as talking to the designer themselves. man, what a sport! MG |
Hi Spencer I've owned many of the speakers above, at least one from each camp except for Gale's latest speakers (I'm sure they're great too). On top of the lists above I've owned many other panel type brands. I too have a special place in my ears for Roger West's products. I've owned the A2, A3 and Dynastat and to this day am pulled into a room when Sound Labs are playing. I even did a couple of my CES rooms using the A3. As a note of audiophile history my RoomTune design was developed in a room with Roger's speakers. Other speakers were involved too, but the Sound Lab/Room interface was the actual room out of my 9 listening rooms at the time that hooked me on knowing I needed to design RoomTune. As with all speaker rooms, the speakers and the room are one and can not be separated. The Sound Lab is one of the best examples of this and the rooms I have tuned to Roger's designing have been some of my favorite audio adventures. The Sound Lab even helped me decide on some of my RoomTune TunePak shapes and sizes. That unmistakable tone to Roger's speakers is like no other. The tone is easy to change but that certain hollow halo sound that the Sound Lab can make is unique (in a positive way) and credit to their character. The richness in the body of acoustical instruments is a trait I have stolen from his sound. It's that sound inside of the instrument that Sound Lab does so well. You hear the baffle board or casing of the instrument, then that air inside and then the back or other side of the acoustical instrument, then of course the cushion of air around. Is there a better panel type speaker for this, I don't know but Dr. West nailed it. It's not an automatic trip but tuned it's a slice of heaven. MG |
| Post removed |
Elizabeth, you rock Girl!!! Hombre I think you've landed on some great folks to help you on your quest! This thread in particular was made so we as a community can get to that practical experience so many of the posters here are able to supply based on their actual doing of the process. That's golden in my book and does the hobby (bdp would rightly correct me saying lifestyle) up righteously. The "walkers" here you will find have some awesome collective experience. It's not that any always agree but the fact that these guys & gals are able to share beyond quoting someone else or true or false possible "what if" theories. I think this thread has taken on the meaning it was meant to have. My thought is, a forum like what is happening here on Agon has more value than even an audiophile magazine when the community is harnessed and each is able to share at a "doing" level. This doesn't mean that any of us will stick to our, for now, opinions forever. But, what it does is gives real accounts based on real life conditions, both historically and modern innovations. Reading the last three post Elizabeth, bdp24 and sbank wrote, you can just see the experience dripping off their words. To me this is what this is about. As a collective we can do so much more. this is rich! mg |
I just read a white paper written by a Roger Sanders! Is this the same Sanders you mention? The paper gives a very good explanation of why most amps won’t work with ESL’s. He says that ESL’s act as a capacitor while conventional speakers act like a resistor.This means that the highly reactive load they present to the amp tends to make most amplifiers unstable because they send electrical current back to the amp unlike conventional speakers which "use up" the electrical current by converting it to heat.And he says watts per channel don't mean anything with ESL's because they don't operate on watts, they operate on voltage.Also I’m pretty sure magnaplanars also present a difficult load.Are Sound Lab speakers more like maggies or ESL’s? |
@hombre If you are interested in considering planars, I'd encourage you to expand your shopping list a bit and add Sound Lab, Sanders and Analysis Audio for audition. I am biased as a Sound Lab owner, but after having owned Quads and spent much time with many Maggies and listened a few times to the others, I think it would be worth your while. FWIW, I agree that in general you do need a pretty beefy amp with most of these guys. I am a bit surprised by @elizabeth 's comment that her 20.7s are easy to drive. Maybe they have been improved in this regard, but the 20.5 and 20.1s I'm more familiar with both benefit from plenty of power and current, and relatively suffer without them. I know Sound Lab has also gone to great lengths to make their newer models easier to drive than my vintage thirsty, hungry A3s. If budget is an issue, Sanders makes the Magnetech amps designed specifically for electrostatics, and they provide pretty great value/$ in that regard. Cheers, Spencer |
Having owned a speaker utilizing the EMIM/EMIT drivers Elizabeth likes (the Infinity RS-1b), Magneplanars (Tympani T-I, T-Id, and currently T-IVa), and ESL’s (currently original QUADS, aka 57’s), there is a contemporary loudspeaker I suggest auditioning that provides advantages of them all and then some---the Eminent Technology LFT-8b. A better speaker over-all imo than the RS-1b (I sold my pair back to Brooks Berdan), low sensitivity/efficiency like Maggies but at the more tube-amp friendly nominal impedance of 8 ohms (the magnetic-planar m/t drivers themselves are 11 ohms, for those bi-amping. A pair of Atma-Sphere M60 amps would be great with them), fairly low bass response from the sealed 8" dynamic woofer, higher maximum SPL capability than many ESL’s (certainly the QUADS), very low coloration and high timbral accuracy, high transparency (distortion levels approaching that of ESL’s), easy to integrate into a room. All for $2499/pr, barely more than the Maggie MG1.7i, less than half the price of the MG3.7i. The best kept secret in hi-fi. |
I believe I said that I HAVE heard electrostatic speakers.I do plan on hearing magnepan speakers if I can find a place where they have them. And the difficult load thing with ESL’s is established fact, not "made up because I read about it". And not "theory with no meaning" but precisely the opposite. |
| Post removed |
It seems common sense to me that the driver which is utilized in an electrostatic would be superior to a dynamic (cone) speaker in every way.Only thing is, I'm told I would need a very good amp because ESL's present a very difficult load for an amp to drive. So my lowly receiver probably couldn't cut it. |
I have heard electrostatic speakers in the past and my experience of them is that nothing else can match them in terms of detail and transparency. The design principal of them seems good to me. Just as my new Honda Accord seems an excellent car to me,but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have a BMW. |
Hi Hombre It's cool that your system sounds great! I'm sure everyone here is giving you a thumbs up, including me. However there's something I'm not getting from your post. If your system is a "perfectly tuned system", why would you be planning on changing your speakers? I guess I'm not following you here. Why move away from "perfect" I guess people will be asking you. Anyway, nothing like a well tuned system where almost every song sounds amazingly good. I see this is your second post, enjoy the forum! mg |
well I must have accidentally assembled a perfectly tuned system WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT I WAS DOING!!!! Almost every song I listen to on it sounds amazingly good. (unfortunately there really are a few poorly mastered recordings and no amount of "tuning" can change that). And my system is not what most would consider "high end". Yamaha Aventage receiver, Polk Rtia5 speakers,Oppo 203 CDP, B&W powered sub,Panasonic 50 inch H.D. plasma tv. I bought the last plasma on the market. And it's no longer being made. The picture on it is awesome. I'm not naturally inclined to go down the rabbit hole of stuff like "tuning" or "low mass".Neither of these makes sense to me. I just need a system that looks good, sounds good, and then I can forget about gear and just enjoy the music.But I do plan on (someday) getting either Martin Logan ESL's or Maggies. Maybe someone here can suggest which would sound better? |
Here is the type of brilliance, genius, and enlightenment that is on that thread this one from the guy who studied electrical engineering at Cheech & Chong University: kosst_amojan"In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold, or pain or pleasure. They’re abstractions produced by the brain to allow consciousness to interpret them." Do not dare doubt, question, or challenge this sky-high thinker because he will insult, degrade, and humiliate you to the best of his ability which is unfortunately for him not very much! |
Readers There has been many example threads produced recently that should be looked at as far as "talk but not walk?" that I told you would appear, here is one http://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-invention-of-measurements-and-perception The question you might want to ask yourselves is "do you want to take advice from this forum"? |
| Post removed |
You can make all the adjustments you want and reach perfection. Then you are proud and call a few of your friends to hear it. Once they enter the room, your previous adjustments become, for lack of a better word, incorrect. Now, someone could start accounting for that and making suggestions how to set the room up if you are alone, if there is three of you, if one is very skinny and one is "plump" (the word I try to use since Michael Green mentioned it here a few months ago, so well-placed in one funny exchange), and so on. It does not equal "snake oil" but may equal "chasing your tail". In theory, any change in the room will yield difference in sound. In practice, if that bothers you, it is time to take a walk. A real walk, not "walk/talk" kind of walk. |
A lot has already been said about speaker location and room acoustics and why trial and error - move a little, listen a little - is not (rpt not) a particularly effective way to determine the optimum location for speakers in a room. What is needed is a comprehensive method that allows for an on-going room treatment program and the ability to change speaker locations periodically to account for new room acoustics treatment and other changes to the system. That method must work for ANY type or make of speaker in any listening room, with or without room treatment. And that method must also be able to account for improvements to room treatments, equipment changes/mods, tweaks.Trying to determine the ideal speaker locations by trial and error - move a little, listen a little - is like trying to solve a set of n simultaneous equations in n+ x unknowns. The best you can hope for is finding local maximums. When you Control the Mail you Control Information. - Newman |
Hi Elizabeth Have you ever started a thread on your system? If so, what's the link? http://tuneland.forumotion.com/f3-home-audio-systems If you ever want to start one on TuneLand above is the page. I know of one member of TuneLand that would really get into your setup and of course there are many readers. Your an easy read and I would bet one of the favorite posters here on Agon. It would be cool for you to have a section of your own where you gave your thoughts on audio and folks could come visit with you on specifics. I would love to have that thread or section on TuneLand. Magnepan are great listening tools, iconic. There is a certain class Maggie owners bring to the hobby. I not only like the speaker and the speaker's history, but also enjoy the Magnepan owner attitude. Magnepan is part of the HEA, but more, is a true "Audiophile" product. Michael |