"Regression analysis" and my search for detail

[Feanor]

I put my Magneplanar MMGs up for sale, I think I have a buyer -- they'll be gone next weekend. My big problem with MMGs is "loudness", that is, their limited ability to deliver realistically loud orchestral crescendos for example. I haven't decided what to replace them with.

Meanwhile I moved my 25 year old B&W DM7's into my main system. The "regression" I'm talking about is this return to those old speakers: I wanted to hear again a speaker that is substantially different from what I've become used to.

The B&W DM7's closest present-day descendant is the 704, though there are differences of curse, including the sound. The DM7 has the typical British/B&W sound of its era: a depressed mid-range and a rather dark, "woody" sound. The DM7s have never sounded better in my main system than now, thanks to my Bel Canto amp. But experiencing them again has reminded me why I replaced them with the MMGs. The latter have all the "air", transparency, and detail that the former lacks.

Speaking of "detail", I assure you I'm not confusing resolution with "etch" or "grain" -- I've been around too long for that. Rather I talking about spatial information and authentic instrument timbre. Detail is, IMO, the vital component of transparency and imaging capability. Interestingly the DM7s, notwithstanding its recessed mid-range, sound more "close up" than the MMGs; this I attribute to the formers lack of convincing spatial information.

I think most people would agree that "detail" is derived from the upper mid range and highs. For example, the distinctive "attack" of the tympani is really a mid-range phenomenon. My conclusion is that detail, as it provides spatial info and instrument timbres, is less a matter of ruler-flat frequency response than it is of speed and freedom from distortion.

"Speed", in more technical terms, is likely transient response or "slewing rate". Speed is realized by the fast and uniform response of the driver's radiating surface. I think the natural advantage here goes to planar and ribbon designs, though there are good dynamic drivers too, which are typically light, rigid, and small.

All this brings me at last to the question of what will replace my MMGs. I think I can rule out small, bookshelf designs for "loudness" reasons. But I do want transparency and speed. Speakers I'm considering are:

- Magneplanar MG 1.6 -- definitely the leading contender
- Totem Hawk
- Thiel CS 1.6
- Von Schweikert VR2
- Gallo Nucleus Reference3, (initially without sub amp)

There a few others that might make the list if I had any prospect of auditioning them; e.g. VMPS, Eminent

Also, I haven't ruled out DIY. Here their are innumerable choices, e.g.

- Accuton tweeter & mid + Seas Excel woofer
- Fountek ribbon + Jordan mid + Excel
- Bohlender-Gerbener R50 planar + Scan Speak woofer
- Newform Reseach RD30 quasi-ribbon + Scan Speak woofer
- HiVi planar + Davis mid + Davis woofer, (a cheaper alternative than most)

Of course, I'm hoping for your suggestions!

[E-Stat]

I put my Magneplanar MMGs up for sale, I think I have a buyer -- they'll be gone next weekend. My big problem with MMGs is "loudness", that is, their limited ability to deliver realistically loud orchestral crescendos for example. I haven't decided what to replace them with.
I'm a big believer in system matching. What are your other components? As importantly, what kind of music do you favor?

rw

[happy ears]

I built a pair of Okara II by North Creek Music, although they are not cheap they have been impressive for a pair of bookshelf speakers. They are extremely forgiving in placement as stated by Mr Short and in fact they have been the most forgiving speakers that I have ever used bar none. Although only 85 db at 1 watt and driven by a 150 watt per channel ampifier they can easily fill a medium sized room. Lower end response is about 60 hertz but from there on up they are very impressive. Hope to build a larger set of his kits this summer when time allows. Good luck as there so many choices to pick from and I have always felt speakers where the hardest to make a decision on.

[Feanor]

I'm a big believer in system matching. What are your other components? As importantly, what kind of music do you favor?

rw
I listen to classical music almost exclusively. I'm particularly fond of chamber music but also enjoy large and small scale orchestral and vocal and choral works.

I should mention that my listening room is a smallish medium sized, about 15' x 22' x 8', heavily carpetted and furnished. My principal equipment consists of a Sony SCD-CE775 SACD/CD player and a Bel Canto eVo2i integrated amp. The latter is rated for 120 watts @ 8 ohms and 200 @ 4; it is extremely transparent and neutral balanced, but not forgiving of recordings or associated equipment.

[Buzz Roll]

I'm on the same page as you concerning spatial info and instrument timbre. My deal has always been time coherence, so I also do not put as much as emphasis on flat frequency response as many others do. Music is pitch, loudness and timing, and without timing, you're missing a big percentage of the music. With that in mind, my picks are Ohm, Meadowlark, Green Mountain Audio. From your list I like the 1.6's but they're hard to set up, and the one's I heard were not exactly neutral sounding. Totem Hawk's are not a high end speaker by any means, but rather an ok speaker that looks good in most homes - not audiophile quality. The others I haven't heard yet, so others here can help you.

[happy ears]

Well Feanor you got me beat presently I am not at home right now but I believe that my room is 13.5' x 26 x 7'10". You are just shy on what I would call optium width could use a couple of more feet in length but overall a very good size room. I can move the floor upstairs when the door is closed and I mean move the floor, cheap construction in my eyes but this is what they built not me. A sub would be very impressive added to my Okara II's.

Also have a set of Naunce Magic Ones which are also two ways, lower bass but not better in fact do not like them as bass is muddy and has a distinct low end hump or what other people would call punch. Was that money thing at the time. The odd thing at lower volumes the Magic Ones are louder but the Okara II's go louder on peaks when the volume is turned up on peaks.

Only listened to one pair of Totem's and was not impressed with the bass, they did go much lower but not clear or tight do not remember the name, they where not cheap could buy a lot of Okara II's for that much money. Outside of lower end bass they did sound good but I would have designed them to not go as low but be cleaner and tighter but this is my preference

Good luck speaker hunting take your time. I have a Musical Fidelity A300, an Ah CD player and a JA Mitchell turntable plus the CD's and vinyl but never have enough music.

Good luck and enjoy

[Feanor]

... but never have enough music.

Good luck and enjoy
I agree with that sentiment. There was a period of 15 years or so when I did little listening and almost no expansion of my record collection. The result to day is I have less than 300 CDs and about 150 LPs. However I have a sort of plan to expand my collection at a reasonable rate.

I currently use a PSB Subsonic 6 subwoofer with which I'm reasonable satisfied. Still, I suspect the Totem Hawk might come up a little short on the "loudness" side, much like the MMGs.

[markw]

I was in the same boat with my MMG's. I very much liked what they did but at higher levels they became, well, somewhat. congested.

I brought some CD's to my local Maggie dealer (Audio Connection in Bloomfield, NJ*) and spent some time there and found out that everything the MMG's did, the 1.6's did too. Only louder, cleaner and better. I played with the current B&W's and others in that price range but something about that planar experience is hard to beat.

..placed my order that night and never regretted it. I did have to upgrade my amp fromn a NAD 214 to a Rotel RB-991, though. You should be fine. though.

*Yes, a blatent plug but they are worth it. I recommend them highly. Say hello to John Rutan for me. http://www.audioconnect.com/

[E-Stat]

I listen to classical music almost exclusively. I'm particularly fond of chamber music but also enjoy large and small scale orchestral and vocal and choral works.

I should mention that my listening room is a smallish medium sized, about 15' x 22' x 8', heavily carpetted and furnished. My principal equipment consists of a Sony SCD-CE775 SACD/CD player and a Bel Canto eVo2i integrated amp. The latter is rated for 120 watts @ 8 ohms and 200 @ 4; it is extremely transparent and neutral balanced, but not forgiving of recordings or associated equipment.
I share your preference for acoustically oriented music and confess to a decided planar bias since I first heard Tympanis thirty years ago. I've yet to find a traditional box speaker that satisfies my priorities for coherency, transient response, and image size. I'm with markw on seriously auditioning the 1.6s. They have got to be one of audio's best bargains and you have some nice gear to drive them. The only challenge is, like all bipolars, they are at their best with some space behind them. Their big brother, the 20.1, is among the best speakers in my experience.

Happy hunting!

rw

[RobotCzar]

Feanor,

Perhaps you would like the opinion of a confirmed objectiivist, if for no other reason than you will get plenty of opinions from the subjectivist crowd. They can advise about "attack" and "speed", etc.

I would not make a recommendation on a particular speaker as I have better things to do than hang out in highend salons. But, I will offer some general advice.

I agree with you about "loudness" and Maggies. I have always found them a bit lacking in punch (low end). I don't see how a planar will ever overcome this problem. I therefore recommend a hybrid with a planar or ribbon main driver and a dynamic cone for bass. I have found this combination to be the best compromise for dipolar speakers.

Now, regarding dipoles. I like the effect, but I suggest you keep in mind that dipoles are using a trick to achieve a sound that sounds realistic, but really isn't. Dipoles (and bipoles) compensate for the spatial deficiencies in audio reproduction from 2-channel stereo by bouncing some of each channel's sound off the surfaces of your listening room. The effect seems much more realistic (to us classical music fans) than directly radiated 2-channel stereo. This says a lot about the deficiencies of 2-ch stereo. But, I think it is healthy to keep in mind that this trick is an illusion (not based on real information about the room reflections, etc of the original recording venue. The only way to really improve soundstage and ambience in home audio is with properly encoded multichannel. (Note, I don't believe current commercial multichannel offerings ARE properly encoded--they are made for thearter sound.)

So, am a recommending against dipoles? No, I like the sound--for 2 channel, I just think it helps us get the right perspective to review what is really going on. You are getting 3D "detail" but it is not accurate, it is appealing and seems morel lifelike (which IS the ultimate goal). So I offer this opinion so that you evaluate the 3D aural effects of speakers without pretending that one is "right". This is an area where your subjective opinion is all that matters. The problem is, you cannot judge speaker preformance (particularly dipoles) unless they are in your listening room. So my recommendation is that you only consider speakers you can try out in your house.

[Buzz Roll]

I agree with RobotCzar, that's why I went with a pair of Ohms. At home demo, and they sound EXCELLENT when playing classical music!

[Feanor]

...
I agree with you about "loudness" and Maggies. I have always found them a bit lacking in punch (low end). I don't see how a planar will ever overcome this problem. I therefore recommend a hybrid with a planar or ribbon main driver and a dynamic cone for bass. I have found this combination to be the best compromise for dipolar speakers.
...
Dipoles (and bipoles) compensate for the spatial deficiencies in audio reproduction from 2-channel stereo by bouncing some of each channel's sound off the surfaces of your listening room. The effect seems much more realistic (to us classical music fans) than directly radiated 2-channel stereo. This says a lot about the deficiencies of 2-ch stereo. But, I think it is healthy to keep in mind that this trick is an illusion (not based on real information about the room reflections, etc of the original recording venue.
....
The problem is, you cannot judge speaker preformance (particularly dipoles) unless they are in your listening room. So my recommendation is that you only consider speakers you can try out in your house.
About the dipolars. And properly set up they can sound very fine for stereo -- I would not consider them for HT nor multi-channel. In any case, I haven't decided yet that to go dipole.

Also, I will listen to the speakers in my own home if possible. However that might be limiting given I live in a small center. Toronto has it all but is a 5 hour round trip away.

[Feanor]

I agree with RobotCzar, that's why I went with a pair of Ohms. At home demo, and they sound EXCELLENT when playing classical music!
That was years ago, and I sort of always regetted selling them, (in fact, that when I got the aforementioned B&W DM7's). They had the greatest soundstage known to man.

[Feanor]

...
found out that everything the MMG's did, the 1.6's did too. Only louder, cleaner and better.
...
Of the MG 1.6's. For sure, they are the leading contenders.

However if the local dealer has them, for sure I'm going to listen to the Gallo Reference3's too.

[Buzz Roll]

The 1.6s remind of the Ohms, in that once your hooked, it's hard to go back to regular ol' cone 'n dome speakers. Although I'm into jazz, listening to music on the Ohm's has really sparked my interest in classical music - it just sounds great! I still believe that Maggie and Ohm are two of the long-running, classic speaker companies around today.

If you hear the Gallos, let us know how they sound. Come to think of it, I think a dealer near my office carries them, so I'll try them tomorrow.