From: henken@ocf.berkeley.edu (Matthew J. Henken)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Magneplanars again...
Date: 15 Dec 1992 03:02:50 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Maggies

In article <1992Dec15.002236.26080@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> dtt@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (david.t.townsend) writes:
>In article <529@bit.UUCP> grego@bit.UUCP (Grego Sanguinetti) writes:
>>In article <sikorsky.724086181@ee.ualberta.ca> sikorsky@ee.ualberta.ca (Mike Sikorsky) writes:
>>>As I mentioned to John, the bass response is something I'm concerned
>>>about; placement is absolutely critical? (I would think so)

>>Yes, subwoofers are advised when you can, especially with the SMGa's. The bass

Not by Magnepan, they're not advised.  In fact, they go to considerable
lengths to stress that you ought *not* use a subwoofer.  I can understand
their reasoning, and considering the bass response of the 2.6s, I really
don't think they are necessary.  I have only recently become interested in
organ music (and thus did not buy the 2.6s with the organ in mind) and I was
shocked to hear how low the Maggies could go.  I mean, I was always impressed
by how lifelike and detailed they reproduced the sorts of bass encoountered
in normal orchestral settings:  Bass drums (at the end of Shostakovich's 5th
symphony, you can almost see the deforming drumhead, wow!) and doublebasses,
but in the organ works I was getting notes which really did shake the room
(not at unreasonable volumes, either).  

>>is there and sounds good but not as rich as a good box speaker bass CAN be.
>>Being a bass player, I am particular to the bass sound!

Considering how good the midrange and highs are, and considering how clear
and detailed the bass is, I would be willing to overlook inadequate bass
extension.  However, the bass extension is very, very far from inadequate.

>The bass improves a lot with use, and placement is critical to achieve
>good bass. With the right placement, the bass can be quite good on
>the 2.6Rs. An article I obtained in preprint (submitted at JAES)
>suggests that planar speakers should be placed according to the
>1/3 rule, i.e. the speakers one third of the way into the room
>from the front) and the listener two thirds of the way from the
>front wall. This matches my own experience and the results of

Cool!  I must be a genius, considering I found just this configuration all
by my lonesome.  :-)

>I experimented with several quality subwoofers, and didn't find any
>that were a good match to the Maggies. 

This is what I would expect.  Magnepan says that it will be impossible to 
match the low-end of their speakers (which is probably less true for the 
SMGa's than the 2.6s, 3.3s or certainly the MG20s).  I guess I'm just
plain lucky that my finances don't permit me to test their assertion.  :-)

>>>Hmmm...what else...Well made?  Good product for the money? 

>>Mine are well made,great product for the money (bang for buck is their biggest
>>feature).

>I was pleased with the quality of construction and the sound. The company

Ditto.

>>>Would Maggie owners ever consider going back to box/cone designs?

>>I'm currently hooked on planner type speakers for my stereo and video system.
>>Of course not for musical or sound reinforcement applications.

This is my position precisely.

>It is possible to go back to a box/cone design from Maggies and
>be happy. Of course it helps if the switch is to Thiel CS3.6s....

It may be possible, but I see myself sticking with planar speakers for quite
some time.


Matthew J. Henken
henken@ocf.berkeley.edu