Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade or Downgrade of the Martin Logan

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 3:56:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi, I've heard that the Innersound speakers sound better than the Martin
Logan, is that the case? Anyone has the experience?

I have the Martin Logan Prodigy driven by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1
right now. How's the Kaya Reference or the Eros MK III sounds compare to
the Prodigy?

Just an addition comparison, how about the Magnepan MG 20.1 compare to the
above two (three)?

Thanks for your advice.

Lawrence
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 3:42:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5 Oct 2004 23:56:34 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi, I've heard that the Innersound speakers sound better than the Martin
>Logan, is that the case? Anyone has the experience?

They certainly sound *different*, as you'd expect. 'Better' is not a
term which sensibly fits those two, since both are highly competent
and have similar design credentials. Go listen for yourself.

>I have the Martin Logan Prodigy driven by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1
>right now. How's the Kaya Reference or the Eros MK III sounds compare to
>the Prodigy?

No way to tell, since they're not in your room. Go listen for
yourself. In particular, get a home demo. With speakers like these, a
home demo is *essential*.

BTW, I can see where you're coming from on amps, since Parasound uses
the NAD model of local design and overseas manufacture. Rest assured
that this John Curl design (hence the JC1) is as good as anything made
by Halcro or Mark Levinson (did you know that John Curl has also
designed ML products?), and has enough power to drive any reasonable
speaker.

>Just an addition comparison, how about the Magnepan MG 20.1 compare to the
>above two (three)?

Entirely different room interaction with the big Maggies, especially
in the bass. Are they 'better'? Who knows? Go listen for yourself.

In a more general sense, why do you want other people's opinions on
the sound of speakers? Especially with the planar types you mention,
they will vary *enormously* depending on the kind of room they're in,
so despite both being high quality speakers with large dipole
radiators, my Apogees are not going to sound anything like your
Prodigys, since they are in entirely different rooms. Understanding
such basics is *essential* to advancing the overall sound quality of
your system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 7:15:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck1vse02h3s@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 5 Oct 2004 23:56:34 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I've heard that the Innersound speakers sound better than the Martin
> >Logan, is that the case? Anyone has the experience?
>
> They certainly sound *different*, as you'd expect. 'Better' is not a
> term which sensibly fits those two, since both are highly competent
> and have similar design credentials. Go listen for yourself.
>
> >I have the Martin Logan Prodigy driven by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1
> >right now. How's the Kaya Reference or the Eros MK III sounds compare to
> >the Prodigy?
>
> No way to tell, since they're not in your room. Go listen for
> yourself. In particular, get a home demo. With speakers like these, a
> home demo is *essential*.
>
> BTW, I can see where you're coming from on amps, since Parasound uses
> the NAD model of local design and overseas manufacture. Rest assured
> that this John Curl design (hence the JC1) is as good as anything made
> by Halcro or Mark Levinson (did you know that John Curl has also
> designed ML products?), and has enough power to drive any reasonable
> speaker.
>
> >Just an addition comparison, how about the Magnepan MG 20.1 compare to
the
> >above two (three)?
>
> Entirely different room interaction with the big Maggies, especially
> in the bass. Are they 'better'? Who knows? Go listen for yourself.
>
> In a more general sense, why do you want other people's opinions on
> the sound of speakers? Especially with the planar types you mention,
> they will vary *enormously* depending on the kind of room they're in,
> so despite both being high quality speakers with large dipole
> radiators, my Apogees are not going to sound anything like your
> Prodigys, since they are in entirely different rooms. Understanding
> such basics is *essential* to advancing the overall sound quality of
> your system.
> --
>

An in home audition of a MG 20.1? Neat trick if you can do it.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 9:10:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7 Oct 2004 03:15:14 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ck1vse02h3s@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On 5 Oct 2004 23:56:34 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi, I've heard that the Innersound speakers sound better than the Martin
>> >Logan, is that the case? Anyone has the experience?
>>
>> They certainly sound *different*, as you'd expect. 'Better' is not a
>> term which sensibly fits those two, since both are highly competent
>> and have similar design credentials. Go listen for yourself.
>>
>> >I have the Martin Logan Prodigy driven by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1
>> >right now. How's the Kaya Reference or the Eros MK III sounds compare to
>> >the Prodigy?
>>
>> No way to tell, since they're not in your room. Go listen for
>> yourself. In particular, get a home demo. With speakers like these, a
>> home demo is *essential*.
>>
>> BTW, I can see where you're coming from on amps, since Parasound uses
>> the NAD model of local design and overseas manufacture. Rest assured
>> that this John Curl design (hence the JC1) is as good as anything made
>> by Halcro or Mark Levinson (did you know that John Curl has also
>> designed ML products?), and has enough power to drive any reasonable
>> speaker.
>>
>> >Just an addition comparison, how about the Magnepan MG 20.1 compare to
>the
>> >above two (three)?
>>
>> Entirely different room interaction with the big Maggies, especially
>> in the bass. Are they 'better'? Who knows? Go listen for yourself.
>>
>> In a more general sense, why do you want other people's opinions on
>> the sound of speakers? Especially with the planar types you mention,
>> they will vary *enormously* depending on the kind of room they're in,
>> so despite both being high quality speakers with large dipole
>> radiators, my Apogees are not going to sound anything like your
>> Prodigys, since they are in entirely different rooms. Understanding
>> such basics is *essential* to advancing the overall sound quality of
>> your system.
>> --
>>
>An in home audition of a MG 20.1? Neat trick if you can do it.

But otherwise, there's simply *no* point in giving advice, since large
planar dipoles are acutely room-sensitive. Besides, any dealer selling
MG 20s should without question be offering a 'money back' home trial
of at least two weeks. If you can't afford to pony up for that, how
were you going to pay for the speakers in the first place?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 9:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
news:ck1vse02h3s@news4.newsguy.com:

> In a more general sense, why do you want other people's opinions on
> the sound of speakers? Especially with the planar types you mention,
> they will vary *enormously* depending on the kind of room they're in,
> so despite both being high quality speakers with large dipole
> radiators, my Apogees are not going to sound anything like your
> Prodigys, since they are in entirely different rooms. Understanding
> such basics is *essential* to advancing the overall sound quality of
> your system.

First, thank you Mr. Pinkerton for your feedback.

Second, in a more general sense, the purpose of this forum is for people to
ask questions and/or opinions. If everybody think, "Well, why should I ask
questions / opinions, I just go test drive myself." Then this forum will be
useless other than for people argue about DBT!

Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among different
products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it becomes pure
subjective?

If you don't know, just say it or not reply to this thread.

Thanks!

Lawrence
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 7:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among different
> products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it becomes pure
> subjective?

Do you disagree that all speakers have audible flaws that are severe enough in
degree and number to render them 'accurate' in the sense that amplifiers are
that they can be chosen in the same way?
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 7:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>
> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among different
> products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it becomes pure
> subjective?
>
Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
different. There's some good research that correlates listener
preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.

bob
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:49:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8 Oct 2004 05:17:48 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:ck1vse02h3s@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> In a more general sense, why do you want other people's opinions on
>> the sound of speakers? Especially with the planar types you mention,
>> they will vary *enormously* depending on the kind of room they're in,
>> so despite both being high quality speakers with large dipole
>> radiators, my Apogees are not going to sound anything like your
>> Prodigys, since they are in entirely different rooms. Understanding
>> such basics is *essential* to advancing the overall sound quality of
>> your system.
>
>First, thank you Mr. Pinkerton for your feedback.
>
>Second, in a more general sense, the purpose of this forum is for people to
>ask questions and/or opinions. If everybody think, "Well, why should I ask
>questions / opinions, I just go test drive myself." Then this forum will be
>useless other than for people argue about DBT!

Depends what you want to know, now doesn't it? You want to be told
something that is impossible to say with any reasonable degree of
accuracy.

>Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among different
>products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it becomes pure
>subjective?

Did you not read what I wrote? If you have worked your way up to
Prodigys (I'm assuming that they're not your first speaker!), then you
should already know that (unlike amps or cables) almost all speakers
sound very noticeably different. Since you use large planar dipoles,
you should also be aware that moving them a couple of feet makes a
*vast* difference to how they sound. Hence, aside from simplistic
'things to avoid' advice on basically *bad* speakers (of which there
are virtually none in the large planar category), it's simply not
possible to say that one speaker of this type will sound 'better' than
another in any given room. I've not heard anything better than my
Apogee Duetta Signatures in *my* room (for my personal tastes, of
course), but say Quad 989s might be better than anything else in
*your* room - or they might not. Your Prodigys are fine speakers by
any standard, so perhaps you could start by letting us know in what
way *you* find them to be less than ideal, and we might point you to
speakers which excel in those areas - there are no speakers which do
*everything* superbly.

>If you don't know, just say it or not reply to this thread.

What I said was that neither I *nor anyone else* apart from you knows
what a large planar dipole speaker (which appears to be the type you
prefer) will sound like in *your* room. If you consider that to be
non-useful information, then I suggest you try somewhere like
www.audioasylum.com, where you will be absolutely *deluged* with
flamboyant opinions on any speaker you care to name. The *value* of
those opinions is perhaps more arguable....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:52:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in
news:ck6bbd02v55@news3.newsguy.com:

> Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>>
>> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among
>> different products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it
>> becomes pure subjective?
>>
> Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
> speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
> sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
> different. There's some good research that correlates listener
> preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
> more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
> average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
> Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.
>
> bob

No! That is totally unacceptable! When people said cables, pre-amps, and
amplifiers made a difference, they said they can hear it, it is totally
subjective, at that time, you guys said it has to has scientific prove or
else you just imagine yourself.

When it comes to something that you believe, you then said any scientific
figures or measurements would not count, you have to be totally
subjective!

I call it double standard! So from now on, when people claim that they
can hear the difference between cables, amplifiers, you just cannot doubt
it because that is what you are doing in speakers!

I appreciate Stewart's feedback, and I will go to listen with my own
ears, but sometimes it is pretty hard to move around a Innersound
speakers or a Magneplan.

Lawrence
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 8:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck57g102r40@news2.newsguy.com...

> >An in home audition of a MG 20.1? Neat trick if you can do it.
>
> But otherwise, there's simply *no* point in giving advice, since large
> planar dipoles are acutely room-sensitive. Besides, any dealer selling
> MG 20s should without question be offering a 'money back' home trial
> of at least two weeks. If you can't afford to pony up for that, how
> were you going to pay for the speakers in the first place?
> --

It is assumed we are not putzing around here and that we have the funds
available not only to purchase the speakers but also own the equipment
necessary for their satisfactory amplification. It is also assumed we have
appropriate living quarters for a suitable location offering their best
possible sound (and that we will not have to move them about when we are
entertaining so as to then trip over their cableing :-) Twelve inches
towards a wrong location makes a huge difference in the sound of my Maggies.
Are you suggesting that a dealer will sacrfice his floor model for a 2 week
audition or is he/she to offer you a brand new MG 20.1 for this purpose? If
the latter, once out of their original boxes and in your home for this
audition, how are they to be sold, new/used? How will the speaker be trucked
back and forth to your home? Who is going to undertake the cost of their
safe packageing and transport in the event you decide not to purchase them?
As I indicated, "neat trick if you can do it". My Magnepan dealer has been
in my home attending to the ribbons in my speakers several times and in
another occasion to install wire behind my walls and underneath a crawl
space in another room used for HT. Yet I still don't not have the balls to
suggest what you are proposeing.
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 7:21:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Oct 2004 04:52:41 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in
>news:ck6bbd02v55@news3.newsguy.com:
>
>> Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>>>
>>> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among
>>> different products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it
>>> becomes pure subjective?
>>>
>> Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
>> speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
>> sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
>> different. There's some good research that correlates listener
>> preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
>> more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
>> average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
>> Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.
>>
>> bob
>
>No! That is totally unacceptable! When people said cables, pre-amps, and
>amplifiers made a difference, they said they can hear it, it is totally
>subjective, at that time, you guys said it has to has scientific prove or
>else you just imagine yourself.

Correct - and you'll find that if you compare speakers under DBT
conditions, you'll score 100% every time. Indeed, companies such as
Revel use precisely this technique in the development of their
speakers, to find out if some design tweak has *really* made an
audible difference. Hence, the science *has* been done, and it shows
that speakers do indeed sound different. It follows that judgements on
speakers are indeed entirely subjective, and you should not fully
trust the opinion of anyone else, since they will have different
preferences and will be listening in different rooms. Personally, I
can't stand overbright treble, and that personal preference would
colour my opinion of any given speaker. I also have a quite large and
fairly 'dead' room with no slap echo, so I can tolerate a level of
bass power and depth which would be quite overwhelming in a different
environment.

>When it comes to something that you believe, you then said any scientific
>figures or measurements would not count, you have to be totally
>subjective!

I said no such thing, and 'belief' has nothing to do with the *fact*
that speakers have gross audible differences.

>I call it double standard! So from now on, when people claim that they
>can hear the difference between cables, amplifiers, you just cannot doubt
>it because that is what you are doing in speakers!

Utter rubbish.

>I appreciate Stewart's feedback, and I will go to listen with my own
>ears, but sometimes it is pretty hard to move around a Innersound
>speakers or a Magneplan.

Nobody said that getting the best possible sound was *easy* - or
cheap!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 7:22:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 9 Oct 2004 04:57:34 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ck57g102r40@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> >An in home audition of a MG 20.1? Neat trick if you can do it.
>>
>> But otherwise, there's simply *no* point in giving advice, since large
>> planar dipoles are acutely room-sensitive. Besides, any dealer selling
>> MG 20s should without question be offering a 'money back' home trial
>> of at least two weeks. If you can't afford to pony up for that, how
>> were you going to pay for the speakers in the first place?
>> --
>
>It is assumed we are not putzing around here and that we have the funds
>available not only to purchase the speakers but also own the equipment
>necessary for their satisfactory amplification. It is also assumed we have
>appropriate living quarters for a suitable location offering their best
>possible sound (and that we will not have to move them about when we are
>entertaining so as to then trip over their cableing :-) Twelve inches
>towards a wrong location makes a huge difference in the sound of my Maggies.
>Are you suggesting that a dealer will sacrfice his floor model for a 2 week
>audition or is he/she to offer you a brand new MG 20.1 for this purpose? If
>the latter, once out of their original boxes and in your home for this
>audition, how are they to be sold, new/used? How will the speaker be trucked
>back and forth to your home? Who is going to undertake the cost of their
>safe packageing and transport in the event you decide not to purchase them?
>As I indicated, "neat trick if you can do it". My Magnepan dealer has been
>in my home attending to the ribbons in my speakers several times and in
>another occasion to install wire behind my walls and underneath a crawl
>space in another room used for HT. Yet I still don't not have the balls to
>suggest what you are proposeing.

That you, in your own words, "don't have the balls" to suggest a 'sale
or return' deal on speakers which may be quite unsuited to your room,
does not make it a bad idea. I don't know what dealers are like in
your area, but I have *never* encountered a 'high-end' dealer in the
UK who was not prepared to allow such a deal, and I would certainly
never deal with one who had such an attitude. What, if you spent say
$5,000 on a pair of speakers that just didn't work in your room, you
would be happy to keep them?

BTW, I would be happy to pay for shipping costs in such a case,
although the matter has never come up. In fact, my local dealer
*insists* on making home deliveries, probably as a security measure. I
have probably rejected a dozen assorted amplifiers and speakers over
the years after a few days home trial, and this has never caused a
problem. To be fair, I've spent the same or more money on actual
purchases, so the dealers know that there's an eventual sale in it -
I'm not just a 'tyre kicker'. I don't think I've ever taken more than
a week to decide that something just wasn't going to work, but any
dealer I've ever bought from has had a 30-day return policy - and not
with any 'restocking' charges.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 9, 2004 7:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ck7qqp01131@news4.newsguy.com>...
> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in
> news:ck6bbd02v55@news3.newsguy.com:
>
> > Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> >>
> >> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among
> >> different products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it
> >> becomes pure subjective?
> >>
> > Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
> > speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
> > sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
> > different. There's some good research that correlates listener
> > preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
> > more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
> > average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
> > Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.
> >
> > bob
>
> No! That is totally unacceptable!

Well, it's the truth. If you can't accept the truth, you should run
for president.

> When people said cables, pre-amps, and
> amplifiers made a difference, they said they can hear it, it is totally
> subjective, at that time, you guys said it has to has scientific prove or
> else you just imagine yourself.

Yes, that is (roughly) what we guys said, because that is what
scientific investigation has found: Two components with similar FR and
measured distortion cannot be reliably distinguished by sound alone.
>
> When it comes to something that you believe, you then said any scientific
> figures or measurements would not count, you have to be totally
> subjective!

No, that is not what we/I said at all. Scientific investigation has
*proven*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that speakers are almost always
distinguishable by sound alone.
>
> I call it double standard! So from now on, when people claim that they
> can hear the difference between cables, amplifiers, you just cannot doubt
> it because that is what you are doing in speakers!
>
No, it's a single standard. Note that scientific investigation is the
basis for all of the assertions I made above.

bob
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:03:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote:

>
>Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<ck7qqp01131@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in
>> news:ck6bbd02v55@news3.newsguy.com:
>>
>> > Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> >>
>> >> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among
>> >> different products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it
>> >> becomes pure subjective?
>> >>
>> > Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
>> > speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
>> > sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
>> > different. There's some good research that correlates listener
>> > preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
>> > more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
>> > average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
>> > Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.
>> >
>> > bob
>>
>> No! That is totally unacceptable!
>
>Well, it's the truth. If you can't accept the truth, you should run
>for president.
>
>> When people said cables, pre-amps, and
>> amplifiers made a difference, they said they can hear it, it is totally
>> subjective, at that time, you guys said it has to has scientific prove or
>> else you just imagine yourself.
>
>Yes, that is (roughly) what we guys said, because that is what
>scientific investigation has found: Two components with similar FR and
>measured distortion cannot be reliably distinguished by sound alone.
>>
>> When it comes to something that you believe, you then said any scientific
>> figures or measurements would not count, you have to be totally
>> subjective!
>
>No, that is not what we/I said at all. Scientific investigation has
>*proven*, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that speakers are almost always
>distinguishable by sound alone.
>>
>> I call it double standard! So from now on, when people claim that they
>> can hear the difference between cables, amplifiers, you just cannot doubt
>> it because that is what you are doing in speakers!
>>
>No, it's a single standard. Note that scientific investigation is the
>basis for all of the assertions I made above.
>
>bob

Bias controls are still a good idea for any comparative evaluation. But, even
if you use 2 identical loudspeakers they will usually be identifiable because
no 2 speakers can occupy the same physical location in any room at the same
time. Because they occupy no acoustical space electronics and cabling do not
have this as an issue.
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:03:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/9/04 11:22 AM, in article ck8vo60l79@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> That you, in your own words, "don't have the balls" to suggest a 'sale
> or return' deal on speakers which may be quite unsuited to your room,
> does not make it a bad idea. I don't know what dealers are like in
> your area, but I have *never* encountered a 'high-end' dealer in the
> UK who was not prepared to allow such a deal,

The place I bought my Thiels from had a 3 month money back, and a 12 month
return for 100% store credit on the speakers. Electronics were 90 days for
100% refund.
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:04:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Lawrence
I'm not sure many of these responses will have moved you forward much.
Stewart Pinkerton makes a valid point about each of these speakers sounding
different in different rooms, but nevertheless....
I own Innersound Eros speakers and like them very much. In my view they
manage the transition between electrostatic and transmission line better
than the Martin Logan equivalents, though I think latest ML models have
improved in that respect. I can also vouch for the quality of their
after-sales service (and like Stewart, I'm in the UK, so geography is an
issue). But you really do need to hear them both, even if you can't manage
this simultaneously!

--
Paul Graber
"Lawrence" <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cjvcbi02cab@news2.newsguy.com...
> Hi, I've heard that the Innersound speakers sound better than the Martin
> Logan, is that the case? Anyone has the experience?
>
> I have the Martin Logan Prodigy driven by a pair of Parasound Halo JC1
> right now. How's the Kaya Reference or the Eros MK III sounds compare to
> the Prodigy?
>
> Just an addition comparison, how about the Magnepan MG 20.1 compare to the
> above two (three)?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> Lawrence
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ck8vo60l79@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 9 Oct 2004 04:57:34 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ck57g102r40@news2.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> >An in home audition of a MG 20.1? Neat trick if you can do it.
> >>
> >> But otherwise, there's simply *no* point in giving advice, since large
> >> planar dipoles are acutely room-sensitive. Besides, any dealer selling
> >> MG 20s should without question be offering a 'money back' home trial
> >> of at least two weeks. If you can't afford to pony up for that, how
> >> were you going to pay for the speakers in the first place?
> >> --
> >
> >It is assumed we are not putzing around here and that we have the funds
> >available not only to purchase the speakers but also own the equipment
> >necessary for their satisfactory amplification. It is also assumed we
have
> >appropriate living quarters for a suitable location offering their best
> >possible sound (and that we will not have to move them about when we are
> >entertaining so as to then trip over their cableing :-) Twelve inches
> >towards a wrong location makes a huge difference in the sound of my
Maggies.
> >Are you suggesting that a dealer will sacrfice his floor model for a 2
week
> >audition or is he/she to offer you a brand new MG 20.1 for this purpose?
If
> >the latter, once out of their original boxes and in your home for this
> >audition, how are they to be sold, new/used? How will the speaker be
trucked
> >back and forth to your home? Who is going to undertake the cost of their
> >safe packageing and transport in the event you decide not to purchase
them?
> >As I indicated, "neat trick if you can do it". My Magnepan dealer has
been
> >in my home attending to the ribbons in my speakers several times and in
> >another occasion to install wire behind my walls and underneath a crawl
> >space in another room used for HT. Yet I still don't not have the balls
to
> >suggest what you are proposeing.
>
> That you, in your own words, "don't have the balls" to suggest a 'sale
> or return' deal on speakers which may be quite unsuited to your room,
> does not make it a bad idea. I don't know what dealers are like in
> your area, but I have *never* encountered a 'high-end' dealer in the
> UK who was not prepared to allow such a deal, and I would certainly
> never deal with one who had such an attitude. What, if you spent say
> $5,000 on a pair of speakers that just didn't work in your room, you
> would be happy to keep them?
>
> BTW, I would be happy to pay for shipping costs in such a case,
> although the matter has never come up. In fact, my local dealer
> *insists* on making home deliveries, probably as a security measure. I
> have probably rejected a dozen assorted amplifiers and speakers over
> the years after a few days home trial, and this has never caused a
> problem. To be fair, I've spent the same or more money on actual
> purchases, so the dealers know that there's an eventual sale in it -
> I'm not just a 'tyre kicker'. I don't think I've ever taken more than
> a week to decide that something just wasn't going to work, but any
> dealer I've ever bought from has had a 30-day return policy - and not
> with any 'restocking' charges.
> --

I too have bought and auditioned lots of equipment from my dealer over a
long time, on one occassion taken home his demo Sequerra 1 FM tuner for a
weekend (while his store was closed) with no problems or reservations
whatsoever. However I agreed to have the tuner back in his store when he
re-opened Monday 10AM (and did). Yet I still would not either ask for his
floor demo MG20.1 for even a single week nor would I ask to get home (one
way or another) a brand new stock MG 20.1s for audition and perhaps only
then to decide to stay with my old speakers. I would not want to buy a new ?
MG 20.1 that (even) you had in your home for a single hour nor would I
expect the dealer to be without his floor model for a single week perhaps
causeing him to lose a sale to another dealer which did have a MG 20.1 on
site. My last word on this subject is as was my first, "neat trick if you
can do it".
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 8:06:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"When it comes to something that you believe, you then said any scientific
figures or measurements would not count, you have to be totally
subjective!

I call it double standard! So from now on, when people claim that they
can hear the difference between cables, amplifiers, you just cannot doubt
it because that is what you are doing in speakers!
"

There is no difference when testing amps/wire and speakers. Both are done
by listening alone and the only result of the test is to see if a
difference, any difference, can be spotted. This ability to spot a
difference depends mostly on the differences rising above an audible
threshold. With a distortion difference big enough to rise above the
threshold, two amps can be spotted. In speakers there are many
differences that almost always rise above the threshold, for example the
room interaction effects. When speakers are of a similar design and with
similar room interactions, etc.; the differences are harder to spot but
are still enough different to hear in testing. Same test, same standards,
same thresholds.
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 6:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/10/04 12:04 AM, in article ckacc702949@news1.newsguy.com, "Georgie
Charles" <georgie.charles@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Lawrence
> I'm not sure many of these responses will have moved you forward much.
> Stewart Pinkerton makes a valid point about each of these speakers sounding
> different in different rooms, but nevertheless....
> I own Innersound Eros speakers and like them very much. In my view they
> manage the transition between electrostatic and transmission line better
> than the Martin Logan equivalents, though I think latest ML models have
> improved in that respect. I can also vouch for the quality of their
> after-sales service (and like Stewart, I'm in the UK, so geography is an
> issue). But you really do need to hear them both, even if you can't manage
> this simultaneously!

You are absolutely correct!

I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will find
that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe that
Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.

I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in your
home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since the
transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 8:39:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/10/04 10:58 AM, in article ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com, "B&D"
<bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will find
> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
^^^^^^
Meant to say ...criticisms of the ML's and other elecrostatic hybrids ...

> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
> in the low end.
>Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe that
> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 8:41:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will
find that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe
that Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of
driver."

The more likely difference in the electro / cone difference is
radiation pattern of the dipole electro and the monopole cone, very
different interactions with the room and the pattern as seen in the
listening spot. "Fast" has no meaning in a speakers performance except
as it applies to bandwidth. It takes x "speed" to produce a 100 hz
signal, regardless of speaker type and no more.
October 11, 2004 7:26:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>
> The more likely difference in the electro / cone difference is
> radiation pattern of the dipole electro and the monopole cone, very
> different interactions with the room and the pattern as seen in the
> listening spot. "Fast" has no meaning in a speakers performance except
> as it applies to bandwidth. It takes x "speed" to produce a 100 hz
> signal, regardless of speaker type and no more.

Well, I have noticed that almost every crossover design delays the bass
quite a bit. I experimented with Linkwitz-Riley 2nd and 4th order designs
and found them inacceptably introducing a delay, which had the effect of
what I call the bass is "limping behind".
I now use a novel subtractive active xover I developed myself and now the
bass integrates absolutly flawless with my Manger MSW treble speakers. The
pulse response has become beautiful.
BTW I will offer a little unexpensive box with a few controls, so this can
be tried out by everyone with bi-amped speakers. The advantage is highest
for very low crossover points(below 500Hz) or subwoofer integration.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 5:32:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Regarding "speed" of speakers:D 

"Well, I have noticed that almost every crossover design delays the bass
quite a bit. I experimented with Linkwitz-Riley 2nd and 4th order designs
and found them inacceptably introducing a delay, which had the effect of
what I call the bass is "limping behind".
I now use a novel subtractive active xover I developed myself and now the
bass integrates absolutly flawless with my Manger MSW treble speakers. The
pulse response has become beautiful."

This is not related to "speed", the original comments were in the context
that a cone sub and electro mid and upper sounded different because the
sub didn't have the "speed" of the latter. Many sub woofers have phase
controls, which can address the "time" mismatch to some degree, as can
placement and swapping wire connections just as easily and with a greater
range. The "delay" introduced is questionable with regard to audibility,
this can be tested of course, grin. There is also the question of x
amount of delay at all freqs and increasing delay with freq change. The
former is addressed as above. In some research of audibility of the
latter it was not audibile if matched in the xover region and smoothly
changed with freq.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 5:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2004 04:52:41 GMT, Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >nabob33@hotmail.com (Bob Marcus) wrote in
> >news:ck6bbd02v55@news3.newsguy.com:
> >
> >> Lawrence <cpleung0817@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> >>>
> >>> Since you are so famous on making "scientific comparison" among
> >>> different products, why all of a sudden when it comes to speakers, it
> >>> becomes pure subjective?
> >>>
> >> Because scientific comparison demonstrates that, when it comes to
> >> speakers, it really is purely subjective, at least in a practical
> >> sense. Speakers, unlike (most) amps and wires, really do sound
> >> different. There's some good research that correlates listener
> >> preferences with speaker measurements, but those measurements are far
> >> more detailed than anything you can find on a spec sheet. So all the
> >> average consumer has to go on is his ears--or somebody else's ears.
> >> Stewart was merely suggesting that you go with your own ears.
> >>
> >> bob
> >
> >No! That is totally unacceptable! When people said cables, pre-amps, and
> >amplifiers made a difference, they said they can hear it, it is totally
> >subjective, at that time, you guys said it has to has scientific prove or
> >else you just imagine yourself.

> Correct - and you'll find that if you compare speakers under DBT
> conditions, you'll score 100% every time. Indeed, companies such as
> Revel use precisely this technique in the development of their
> speakers, to find out if some design tweak has *really* made an
> audible difference.


Harman/JBL appears to use it at least as much to nullify biasing
effects of brand and appearance, when doing comparisons of
different speakers.


--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 5:34:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will
find
> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
> in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe
that
> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
>
> I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in your
> home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since
the
> transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.

Are there (m)any dealers which carry both maggies and ML products? IMO there
are none. Since they are competitors it appears logical that there wouldn't
be any. In any event I too am biased towards Magnepan and have owned one or
another since the early seventies. Hybrid ribbon and cone speakers never
really disturbed me. I've heard 8 paneled tympanies augmented by a subwoofer
and loved them. The ancient HQD system employed (Decca) ribbons, Quads and
Hartley subwoofers and if I can compare those with anything I have ever
heard nothing even comes close. Using words often ab/used in audio circles,
"too polite", "slam", "presence", "warmth" and soundstage", Maggies have it
over anything else. They offer a wall of sound, place you right up front as
close as anyone would wish to get (of course afforded by the recording in
question), and can knock your teeth out when you turn up the juice, and are
not steely ice cold as are some others (e.g. Apogees). If you have high
current delivering amps capable of driving low resistance speakers, space
for the speakers to "breathe", you are all set. If you don't tear down some
walls, or move and acquire the right amps before you die because IMO
Magnepan truly offers to die for speakers.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 7:20:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/11/04 9:34 PM, in article ckfcaq0277e@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

> "B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will
> find
>> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
>> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
>> in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
>> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe
> that
>> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
>>
>> I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in your
>> home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since
> the
>> transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.
>
> Are there (m)any dealers which carry both maggies and ML products? IMO there
> are none. Since they are competitors it appears logical that there wouldn't
> be any.

The Sound Concept in Rochester, NY -- my personal favorite and the one I
patronize - stocks both. And there are three high end stores in the area
that I know of.

http://www.thesoundconcept.com/

The Quad dealer is in Buffalo, BTW.

I suppose the exception proves the rule? I was surprised, too.

> In any event I too am biased towards Magnepan and have owned one or
> another since the early seventies. Hybrid ribbon and cone speakers never
> really disturbed me. I've heard 8 paneled tympanies augmented by a subwoofer
> and loved them. The ancient HQD system employed (Decca) ribbons, Quads and
> Hartley subwoofers and if I can compare those with anything I have ever
> heard nothing even comes close. Using words often ab/used in audio circles,
> "too polite", "slam", "presence", "warmth" and soundstage", Maggies have it
> over anything else.

You betcha! The only thing I didn't like of the older ones, and the newer
Quasi ribbons is that if you stand up, you hear the upper frequencies roll
off something fierce.

>They offer a wall of sound, place you right up front as
> close as anyone would wish to get (of course afforded by the recording in
> question), and can knock your teeth out when you turn up the juice, and are
> not steely ice cold as are some others (e.g. Apogees). If you have high
> current delivering amps capable of driving low resistance speakers, space
> for the speakers to "breathe", you are all set. If you don't tear down some
> walls, or move and acquire the right amps before you die because IMO
> Magnepan truly offers to die for speakers.

One of my co-workers is a major Maggie fan - he bought a house with the
criteria that there be a large enough room for his Tympanis! His wife is
used to this and puts up with it - I told her it was clear he had proper
pririties! :-)

I am discovering that I like Thiels as much as the Maggies - funnily enough!
They seem to want almost as much current and complain mightily when they
don't have it
October 13, 2004 3:50:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote:
> Regarding "speed" of speakers:D 
>
>> "Well, I have noticed that almost every crossover design delays the
>> bass quite a bit. I experimented with Linkwitz-Riley 2nd and 4th
>> order designs and found them inacceptably introducing a delay, which
>> had the effect of what I call the bass is "limping behind".
>
> This is not related to "speed", the original comments were in the
> context that a cone sub and electro mid and upper sounded different
> because the sub didn't have the "speed" of the latter. Many sub
> woofers have phase controls, which can address the "time" mismatch to
> some degree, as can placement and swapping wire connections just as
> easily and with a greater range.

But allpass style crossovers delay the bass, and an additional allpass will
delay even more, only with a (DSP based) digital delay you can delay high
frequencies. This is a severe limit of analog electronics, there simply is
no possibility of a high quality delay for higher frequencies. Let us have a
look at a usual crossover as recommended for THX. (80Hz, 4th order L-R)
The lower frequencies will be delayed by 6.78ms(max at 52Hz) compared to the
treble, which is not delayed at all.
This means, that the bass originates *2.3m* behind the treble, only because
of the crossover!
If this is audible or not can be tested with DBT, I have done so(only with 3
persons, but 100% recognition) and found it audible.
When there is a kick from the bassdrum, you destinctly hear first the "plop"
of the pedal with the "boom" coming limping behind. Anybody who has a
conventionally crossed-over subwoofer will notice this. Also the bass seems
to be not completly integrated, somehow a doubt exists if it belongs to the
music.
Please answer if you can hear this.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 3:51:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Oct 2004 01:34:18 GMT, "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net>
wrote:

>"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will find
>> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
>> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to fill
>> in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to be
>> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe that
>> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
>>
>> I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in your
>> home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since the
>> transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.
>
>Are there (m)any dealers which carry both maggies and ML products? IMO there
>are none. Since they are competitors it appears logical that there wouldn't
>be any.

However, it appears from another post that there are several in one
fairly restricted area, suggesting that there is indeed a fair number
of fdealers who carry both brands. IME, good high end dealers do carry
competing brands, as it's in their interest to offer a good choice to
their customers. Some of the less scrupulous companies such as Linn do
certainly go to some lengths to pressure their dealers against such
stocking of competitors' wares, but I don't believe this to be
widespread among reputable manufacturers.

> In any event I too am biased towards Magnepan and have owned one or
>another since the early seventies. Hybrid ribbon and cone speakers never
>really disturbed me. I've heard 8 paneled tympanies augmented by a subwoofer
>and loved them. The ancient HQD system employed (Decca) ribbons, Quads and
>Hartley subwoofers and if I can compare those with anything I have ever
>heard nothing even comes close. Using words often ab/used in audio circles,
>"too polite", "slam", "presence", "warmth" and soundstage", Maggies have it
>over anything else.

Well, that's certainly one opinion, but if you like that style of
sound, you should also listen to other full-range panels, such as
Audiostat, Sound Lab, ML's own CLS, and of course the Quad 988/989.

>They offer a wall of sound, place you right up front as
>close as anyone would wish to get (of course afforded by the recording in
>question), and can knock your teeth out when you turn up the juice, and are
>not steely ice cold as are some others (e.g. Apogees).

I have Apogee Duetta Signatures, and they are definitely not 'steely
ice cold', they are in fact one of the most natural sounding speakers
I have ever heard, even more so than the Maggie IIIC with which I
directly compared them when purchasing. Of course, to coin a phrase, I
would say that! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 3:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ckfihi01rn6@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 10/11/04 9:34 PM, in article ckfcaq0277e@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
> Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will
> > find
> >> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
> >> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to
fill
> >> in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to
be
> >> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe
> > that
> >> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
> >>
> >> I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in
your
> >> home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since
> > the
> >> transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.
> >
> > Are there (m)any dealers which carry both maggies and ML products? IMO
there
> > are none. Since they are competitors it appears logical that there
wouldn't
> > be any.
>
> The Sound Concept in Rochester, NY -- my personal favorite and the one I
> patronize - stocks both. And there are three high end stores in the area
> that I know of.
>
> http://www.thesoundconcept.com/
>
> The Quad dealer is in Buffalo, BTW.
>
> I suppose the exception proves the rule? I was surprised, too.
>
> > In any event I too am biased towards Magnepan and have owned one or
> > another since the early seventies. Hybrid ribbon and cone speakers never
> > really disturbed me. I've heard 8 paneled tympanies augmented by a
subwoofer
> > and loved them. The ancient HQD system employed (Decca) ribbons, Quads
and
> > Hartley subwoofers and if I can compare those with anything I have ever
> > heard nothing even comes close. Using words often ab/used in audio
circles,
> > "too polite", "slam", "presence", "warmth" and soundstage", Maggies have
it
> > over anything else.
>
> You betcha! The only thing I didn't like of the older ones, and the newer
> Quasi ribbons is that if you stand up, you hear the upper frequencies roll
> off something fierce.
>
> >They offer a wall of sound, place you right up front as
> > close as anyone would wish to get (of course afforded by the recording
in
> > question), and can knock your teeth out when you turn up the juice, and
are
> > not steely ice cold as are some others (e.g. Apogees). If you have high
> > current delivering amps capable of driving low resistance speakers,
space
> > for the speakers to "breathe", you are all set. If you don't tear down
some
> > walls, or move and acquire the right amps before you die because IMO
> > Magnepan truly offers to die for speakers.
>
> One of my co-workers is a major Maggie fan - he bought a house with the
> criteria that there be a large enough room for his Tympanis! His wife is
> used to this and puts up with it - I told her it was clear he had proper
> pririties! :-)
>
> I am discovering that I like Thiels as much as the Maggies - funnily
enough!
> They seem to want almost as much current and complain mightily when they
> don't have it
>

After owning Maggies, only Thiels and before that IMF monitors floated my
boat among dynamics.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 3:59:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ckfihi01rn6@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 10/11/04 9:34 PM, in article ckfcaq0277e@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
> Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > "B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:ckbimr0bsm@news1.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> I personally have a soft spot for Magnepans - so I am biased. You will
> > find
> >> that ML's to be really nice - the only criticisms I have heard is the
> >> relative speeds of the electrostatic part vs. the cone driver used to
fill
> >> in the low end. Magnepans use ribbons for everything so they tend to
be
> >> rather fast and uniformly so throughout the frequency range. I believe
> > that
> >> Quad is similar to magnepans since they tend to use one type of driver.
> >>
> >> I am sure you can get the dealer to let you listen to both types in
your
> >> home - especially if you are pretty sure you will buy one of them since
> > the
> >> transport and setup of each one is a pain for the dealer.
> >
> > Are there (m)any dealers which carry both maggies and ML products? IMO
there
> > are none. Since they are competitors it appears logical that there
wouldn't
> > be any.
>
> The Sound Concept in Rochester, NY -- my personal favorite and the one I
> patronize - stocks both. And there are three high end stores in the area
> that I know of.
>

I suppose that is what meant by "live and learn".

>
> You betcha! The only thing I didn't like of the older ones, and the newer
> Quasi ribbons is that if you stand up, you hear the upper frequencies roll
> off something fierce.
>

This is true, but why would anyone want to stand up when listening? Another
problem which I experience related to *seating* elevation is that when I
choose a chair putting me closer to the floor, the lower frequencies become
bloated and the resultant soundstage is unattractive. I think the take home
lesson from all this is that one must to be very careful and do a lot of
experimenting with both speaker placement *and* seating position before
reaching any firm conclusion as to faults and strengths of any speaker
system. (People who perform room Equeing must be very familiar with this
situation.) Perhaps maggies require more attention to this issue than do
most other speakers?
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 6:44:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 10/12/04 7:59 PM, in article ckhr450gll@news4.newsguy.com, "Norman M.
Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline.net> wrote:

>> You betcha! The only thing I didn't like of the older ones, and the newer
>> Quasi ribbons is that if you stand up, you hear the upper frequencies roll
>> off something fierce.
>>
>
> This is true, but why would anyone want to stand up when listening?

Good point, though I have been known to have stuff playing in the background
as I putter around the house.


>Another
> problem which I experience related to *seating* elevation is that when I
> choose a chair putting me closer to the floor, the lower frequencies become
> bloated and the resultant soundstage is unattractive.

I hadn't noticed this, but given how Maggies behave, I can see that as an
"issue"


>I think the take home
> lesson from all this is that one must to be very careful and do a lot of
> experimenting with both speaker placement *and* seating position before
> reaching any firm conclusion as to faults and strengths of any speaker
> system. (People who perform room Equeing must be very familiar with this
> situation.) Perhaps maggies require more attention to this issue than do
> most other speakers?

I think the rewards for the "fussiness" of Maggies make it all worthwhile.
I have found that Thiels are not nearly as fussy, though still reward
"proper" placement.

Though, many people want things that are less fussy to room acoustics and
placement - and for those something a bit less resolving and a bit more
forgiving is on order!
!