Best Speakers for Vinyl

[JoeE SP9]

The art of speaker design and manufacture has improved over what was available in the 70's. Of course you must spend some money to reap the benefits. Even CV now makes some speakers that sound good and not just loud.

The best of 70's speakers is generally not as good as the best of current designs.

[Mash]

The MMG is never carried by a Magnepan dealer as far as I know...... it is a "factory introductory" speaker INTENDED to draw you into the Magnepan world and you (usually) order the MMG's directly from the Magnepan site. Still, it is a fine speaker and a bargain at about $625.

However I still feel that a tube amp is best for Magnepan speakers because I found that the "sound" of a Magnepan speaker will vary, and often disagreeably, with a solid state amp.

[ I only use tube gear with Maggies so I am not interested in any arguments. You pay your money & you make your choice.]

So... w/r/t your comments:

1. It is not as clear as I heard at the auditioning at the dealer with the 1.6 and 1.7's ........

A. I do not believe the nonsense about "breaking in". But first I suggest that you CAREFULLY check the bias on your tube gear. Use a GOOD DMM (I use autoranging units, which means I must carefully check what units are displayed, i.e. mV (milivolts, or .001 Volt) versus Volts, or whatever. Read the adjustment instructions carefully, and then measure what bias is set in your units. Overly high bias can soften the sound & shorten tube life.

B. Then too Russian, Telefunken, etc. tubes will probably be clearer than the original Chinese tubes.

C. The MMG should be pretty clear if you do not overdrive them. The 1.7 should offer more frequency extension and louder sound without distortion, i.e. for use in larger rooms.

D. Also an overly bright (live) room can reduce clarity because of reflections and room modes.. There are companies that sell reasonably-priced wall-mountable sound control panels finished if a wide array of attractive fabrics. Clap your hands sharply and listen for any echoes (slap echo) as you move about the room.

2. I am a bit worried about the subwoofer you mentioned Mash.

2.A Dont you think it's too big for the small room I have have ?

... Start with the volume *very low* and "turn it up" SLOWLY until you can *just barely notice* the sub. Use that level as your starting point. Or wait until you move into a place with a larger listening room.

2.B Would the subwoofer make the MMG's perform better by taking the strain away and letting it work on its higher frequencies ?

... The only reason for a sub is to produce the lower frequencies CLEARLY that the MMG cannot manage. The crossover must be sufficiently above the lower freq limit fo the MMG's for a smooth transition blend.

... A (quality) servo-sub will be clearer than non-servo subs. And you will be forever comparing the subs clarity with the MMG's clarity. If you hear that the sub is less clear that the MMG's it will bug you. This is the problem with ESL that have a non-servo cone woofer: There is a noticable difference in clarity.

.... Think about this: With a servo-sub the sub's designer NOT ONLY knows what amp you are using with the sub he designed, but the cone motion of the sub is continuously being corrected back to match the input signal.

[Mash]

You are comparing one speaker to another to upgrade to (or retain) the best that you can afford. If this pleases you, then fine. But you are pursuing a holy grail that you will never reach. Are the new speakers better, or only just as good but different?

There are other fun things to do in life. So, I do not do this.

My goal was to build a system that matches what I hear in the concert hall. I had this result when my final #1 system was in a perfect room (*very* large with 20 ft ceiling.... and solid-as-hell construction.) Other rooms fell short to different degrees, but if the room is impeding one's efforts to obtain the best or most accurate sound, even ever so slightly, then why go on a continuous search for the ever-more-perfect new speaker?

My approach was intended to do the job once and be done. If the sound matches the live music I hear, why worry further.

One can spend a lot of money on the high-end merry-go-round. I preferred to be able to retire while relatively young and in an excellent financial position. But although I still spent some real money, I added to my knowlege of EE along the way which opened more doors providing a career benefit with the company.

Mine is not an audio-purist approach, but then what really is?

[JoeE SP9]

You are comparing one speaker to another to upgrade to (or retain) the best that you can afford. If this pleases you, then fine. But you are pursuing a holy grail that you will never reach. Are the new speakers better, or only just as good but different?

There are other fun things to do in life. So, I do not do this.

My goal was to build a system that matches what I hear in the concert hall. I had this result when my final #1 system was in a perfect room (*very* large with 20 ft ceiling.... and solid-as-hell construction.) Other rooms fell short to different degrees, but if the room is impeding one's efforts to obtain the best or most accurate sound, even ever so slightly, then why go on a continuous search for the ever-more-perfect new speaker?

My approach was intended to do the job once and be done. If the sound matches the live music I hear, why worry further.

One can spend a lot of money on the high-end merry-go-round. I preferred to be able to retire while relatively young and in an excellent financial position. But although I still spent some real money, I added to my knowlege of EE along the way which opened more doors providing a career benefit with the company.

Mine is not an audio-purist approach, but then what really is?

You are at least a little mistaken.

Maggy's do respond to being broken in. The manufacturer says so and my experience of owning three (Model 1's, 2's and 3's) new pairs of Maggy's says so.

I am pursuing nothing. I've been using the same main speakers since before I started posting here, They have been driven by the same tube amps all this time. I admit that I have my eyes on some 120 Watt tube mono blocks. Probably later in 2012 they'll be driving my ESL's.

I switched to ESL's because IMO they were and are more real sounding than the Maggy's I've owned and heard. The sole exception being the 20.1's I've heard.

Sure servo subs do a good job. My "holy grail" speakers (IRS-V's, IRS Beta's and Apogee Grand's) use servo subs. However working within their limits transmission line subs offer all that I need including equalized response to 18Hz and +105dB levels. They are also as DIY's considerably less expensive. Each of my subs has 900 Watts to play with.

All my gear is in a dedicated treated room.

BTW: I too am a retired EE.

[madarahr]

Every component is tube based and I biased the amp following the instructions in the manual. It has Russian valves. As I mentioned earlier, I did not play much at all with the positioning of the speakers other than follow the instructions and within the limitations I have. It is clearly accurate than anything I previously owned but not as good as the auditioning with the 1.6 and 1.7. My source of music is also pretty good quality. I am very much satisfied with what I have right now as it suits the budget and what I wanted to achieve, I will include a sub in some time and a DAC.

[Mash]

Then I would examine the room. It may be too "live" and need some dampening.

Start with "The Master Handbook of Acoustics" by F. Alton Everest. It is an easy read and a practical resource.

Then you can try "Noise & Vibration Control" by Leo Beranek.

Olsen's "Theoretical Acoustics" is an excellent read but it is also oriented toward engineers.... The math is ... well...

I use MMG's in the bedroom for serious (tube amp) listening, and Mackie HR824's for TV sound. Both setups have Velodyne 15" subs.... That room is about 20 ft by 11 & 1/2 ft with a volume ceiling and substantial damping.

[madarahr]

The room is neither live nor flat. I will do some reading. I am almost certain it would lead me to rearrange the room slightly. I will include a picture tomorrow. Regardless, it's very clear and enjoyable. My wife echos those comments despite the fact that she would never care for these things. That's a good sign of achievement already. I might go and do auditioning again just for a comparison!
Does the 15" sub provide more tighter frequency range than the smaller ones? I mean what would be the advantage over a smaller sub if the room volume isn't that large ?

[JoeE SP9]

The room is neither live nor flat. I will do some reading. I am almost certain it would lead me to rearrange the room slightly. I will include a picture tomorrow. Regardless, it's very clear and enjoyable. My wife echos those comments despite the fact that she would never care for these things. That's a good sign of achievement already. I might go and do auditioning again just for a comparison!
Does the 15" sub provide more tighter frequency range than the smaller ones? I mean what would be the advantage over a smaller sub if the room volume isn't that large ?

All things considered a larger sub will generally play louder and deeper. However IMO a better alternative is distributed bass. This is accomplished with two or more, preferably three subs placed asymmetrically in the room. They will give higher SPL's and deeper response. Multiple subs also help cancel room nodes (peaks and dips) thus providing smoother bass response.

[Mash]

Well, Joe, "breaking in" implies "wearing out" or "fatigue failure".

I have not worn any audio equipment out except some tubes and a power supply cap that failed c1974. I have fried a cone speaker, and I have had a cone surround rot (long ago). I would not classify any of these as fatigue failures.

To "break something in" means that you have introduced a permanent and irreversable inelastic change, a redistribution of retained stresses, or a wearing away of material, and so it stands to reason that any real "change" that had resulted from "breaking in" a product will continue to accumulate with further product use until a plastic, wear, or fatigue failure occurs. If a flexing system is operated safely within its fatigue and elastic limits then no change will occur beyond any enviromental or oxidative degredation. This applies to all solids (materials having a grain structure) with the exception of Aluminum which does not demonstrate a fatigue limit.

"Breaking in" an item is a harmless fad in the audiophile world which manufacturers go along with so as to NOT alienate any potential customers. "Breaking in" is a harmless concept so no risk is thereby posed to the manufacturer. But audiophiles will swear that they hear a difference........

Automotive engines do "break in" and (eventually) they will also wear out.