|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.166.189.75
In Reply to: RE: S'phile Recommended Components & Audio Research posted by soulfood on March 16, 2012 at 07:43:30
To be fair, not all products can be reviewed because there are too many of them.
As well, Stereophile typically reviews products that a manufacturer wants to have reviewed and will loan it out for that purpose. As well, it has to be a product that Stereophile wants to review. If there is no agreement, then there is no review. An exception would be some vintage products.
According to John Atkinson, Magnepan does not want Stereophile to review their speakers because Wendell Diller does not feel that JA's measurements properly reflect their performance.
I agree with him to this extent, that JA's measurement suite is not well suited for dipole speakers--this is not an issue specific to Magnepan. Notably, JA's FR graphs for dipoles usually show a big peak in the bass, which does not appear in the room response. I have no idea what proprietary information Diller thinks would be revealed.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
A competing speaker brand could simply buy a pair and reverse engineer them or measure them themselves if they had any interest.
Sure, but they'd have to know look in the first place. I don't think manufacturers buy and measure every competitive model.
"A competing speaker brand could simply buy a pair and reverse engineer them or measure them themselves if they had any interest."
Of course and perhaps they have. The point is, finding a credible way to report their findings. That is, if they don't consider dissection to be proprietary research. :^)
Magnepan would still have the patent so if someone copied them they could sue. I just don't buy the reasoning. Whether people see the measurements or buy the speaker and reverse engineer it - it can be copied.And indeed - they've already been ripped open by Magnestand who basically called the stock speakers junk - that is until you buy his modifications :-)
To read some reports they're the best speakers since sliced bread - chortle. They were at best mediocre (being nice) at CES - yet another reviewer chose them best of show LOL - I mean my God it's truly sad.
I much preferred them Audio Note's Soro (an amp about 1/8 the price of the SS gear) and CD player. The dealer also preferred the combo. Though I actually liked the sound more than Magnepan dealer!!!
Anyway - what Magnestand guy heard is pretty much what I hear every time I hear them. If you have to have a panel speaker - IME Electrostatic is the only way to go.
Edits: 03/17/12
As far as I know, the new 3/7 design hasn't been patented. It may have been covered by an earlier patent that's expired. And absent patents, of course it can be copied -- even with, not infrequently, it isn't that easy to write a patent that can't be worked around. That's presumably why Magnepan doesn't want to send that measurement to everyone in the audio business. I mean, it's not as if every manufacturer buys and analyzes every competing speaker model that comes on the market.By the way, many swear by Magnestand's modifications and PG has always been generous with his expertise and time. However, PG's review of the 1.7 is riddled with misinformation. I have no doubt that PG was sincere when he wrote it, but I've pointed out some of the many factual errors in it, including nonsensical, even libelous statements such as his assertion the supertweeter is a marketing gimmick. It should have been corrected or removed long ago.
As to the subjective audio quality of the 1.7, virtually all the reviews I've seen, personal or in the press, have been raves. For example, Brian Damkroger had this to say about the CES demo you panned: "The 1.7s sounded truly spectacular and at just $2000/pair, destined to be another winner for Magnepan." Pretty typical of the show reviews, as I recall. You of course have a right to your opinion, but it is not widely held.
Edits: 03/19/12
No I have higher standards than they do that's why.I am not exactly sure how any of those so called reviewers could possibly rave about them at CES when 1) they had 10 minute demos and 2) they controlled the music and the volume level - which incidentally were wimpy ass easy to reproduce recordings at LOW volume.
PG may be wrong on the technology but what is your reply to his HEARING of them
"Stock I find the 1.6 very bright and fatiguing after 15-20 minutes. I did not find the 1.7 bright in this regard and in fact I thought it had an "exciting" quality at first and that it was rather dynamic. That lasted for 15 minutes until my brain caught up to the trick. This intrusion of highs into the lower bands is what gives the speaker its' sense of dynamics and the "exciting" quality, however if you have a discerning ear you'll not only grow tired of it, you may begin to resent it as I did. It makes music simply sound wrong. Not fatiguing, but my desire to listen to it is just as absent. IMHO it is a wiring trick designed to remove the 1.6's overt brightness on top but to keep the speaker artificially bright anyway by smearing that brightness all the way down to the upper bass regions. Spread like that it is not in your face and it gives the speaker a false sense of dynamics." http://www.indiespinzone.com/mag/mag1.7.html
Yes he notes
"If you have a discerning ear" (check)
"makes music sound "wrong" (check)
"desire to listen to it absent (check)
"false sense of dynamics" (check)Seems to support exactly to a tee what I have said about them (especially his bright comments on the 1.6). Funny no one ever reads that stuff when the 1.6 was the current model - but now that they're replaced you will see and read the "the 1.7 improves on the previous 1.6 which was bright"
And that is in fact ALSO what I heard. The 1.7 didn't sound bright. He said he enjoyed the 1.7 until 15-20 minutes in. Then it all fell apart for him. Well at the show you got 10 minutes and only 2 tracks - maybe those other reviewers would have caught on as well over more time with their recordings at their normal pr preferred listening levels. Maybe they are also fans of the prior model so they were more easily impressed or ready to be impressed.
My Magnepan dealer (maybe the biggest in Canada) gave up and run Audio Note on them despite being single ended tube amps of under 20 watts. (the also carry Bryston). What a VAST improvement to the Brystons and for a fraction of the money despite being in a much worse room than CES to boot. This is also when I became quite favorable to the 1.7 because with this front end they do sound very nice indeed and why I have the 1.7 in my top 5 under $2k. Incidentally, I like them more than than the dealer.
But I sure as hell didn't hear that at CES - I heard the non brightness which to me is a major improvement over the 1.6.
By the by - there are a LOT of reviewers who dislike the sound of many of these speakers - we tend not to review them or buy them. Very few reviewers actually tell you what they don't like. They may worry over their image or whatever other reasons they may have or perhaps the magazine they write for has certain rules.
I actually like these speakers more than you think (because this post here is more of an absolutist post about speakers not really taking into account their price - which as I said is a top 5 speaker for me under $2k with the front end gear I liked them on)
I also like polarizing speakers even if I am not a die hard fan of them and I like them for that very fact they get people into spiral debates and get people so defensive on them and who will go to the mat defending them. Why? Because they offer something "completely different" (Python). And that makes them worth listening to. The supporters are passionate about it and they think they're the best. Gee reminds me of someone just can't place that handsome devil.
Granted the Magnestand guy is also making a living so perhaps using a dose of hyperbole to get his sales pitch across but there is a grain of truth in it and I think he hears the stock models the way I hear them.
Lastly: The audio business doesn't care what Magnepan is doing - The vast majority of the audio business is dynamic loudspeaker makers and if they liked panels would have been making them instead - they don't. According to the Maggie dealer here - it sure as hell isn't due to the cost of parts. So basically Magnepan would have to worry about what? A dynamic speaker maker like Dynaudio copying them? No!
Other panel makers? No. The best ones are electrostats (even the panel heads say that or will bring up a bunch of defunct ribbon makers like Apogee as being much better). So exactly WHO are they afraid will copy them?
Other ribbon planar makers - umm like who?
And the half dozen if that in the ribbon planar world actually selling anything surely could afford $1700 and buy a set to take apart.
If Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note a tiny tiny company compared to some of these is out buying AvanteGarde acoustic duos and dozens of other top flight competitors of wildly different designs in the $30K+ range then surely a guy trying to sell ribbon panels can afford $1750 to reverse engineer a ribbon panel. I mean it's not like it's a wide field.
You want to make a ribbon planar the name that comes to mind is Magnepan. Indeed, it's the only name that comes to most people's minds(of the one's still in business) unless they're die-hard panel fans.
In fact they could reverse engineer them - put them back together and probably sell them for a grand. R&D for $750 - bingo bango.
Edits: 03/20/12
I can't speak to the standards of reviewers. However, these guys do listen to the best equipment made and, really, I don't see many raves of the kind that greeted the 1.7.You've been to CES so you know how much "also ran" sound you hear their -- often the fault of room acoustics and hurried setup. But not many loudspeakers garner the kind of enthusiastic praise the 1.7 did.
I've also noted that, contrary to what you suggest, at CES I can hear immediately whether a system sounds realistic or not, provided they're playing something like an orchestral recording (according to an interesting Harman study the most revealing kind of music for loudspeaker evaluation). A brief show encounter doesn't provide all the listening experience a critic would need for a full review, of course, but you were the one who mentioned CES and said the sound of the 1.7 was "mediocre" there. Forex, you mention levels. As I recall, in his review of the 1.7, Jon Valin said that the upper midrange got a bit hard when levels were pushed to extremes. That's the sort of information you read a review for, and can't count on reading in a show report.
You say of PG's 1.7 review, "[It] seems to support exactly to a tee what I have said about them (especially his bright comments on the 1.6). Funny no one ever reads that stuff when the 1.6 was the current model." I say, really? Here for example is an excerpt from Brian Damkroger's original review of the 1.6: "Second, although the l.6/QR was unfailingly musical and engaging, it didn't sound particularly flat in my room. I'll leave the measurements to JA, but they sounded a bit boosted in the upper bass and the low treble. The latter affected the perspective, as I'll discuss in a minute, and seemed to emphasize both record-surface noise and the hashy digititis that's woven into some CDs and inexpensive CD players."
My criticism of PG's review lies in his misunderstanding of basic technical matters and his misstatements of fact, rather than his listening impressions. I think he's right about the brightness of the 1.6's (there's a 7 kHz peak in the highs, according to JA's measurements -- gonna sound a bit bright and emphasize noise and hash), and I think he's also right that the 1.6's had more bass, actually a bit too much midbass. But everyone has his own preferences. It's pretty obvious from reading both professional and owner reviews that the 1.7's are highly regarded speakers and a remarkable value for the money.
Beyond that, the individual must decide, because different people have different needs. However, I would say that for those who care about the reproduction of acoustical music, Maggies are pretty much unbeatable in their price class, and often far above it. That is why they evoke such passion, both from owners and reviewers. Whereas those who listen mostly to studio pop, or who are after "hi fi" attributes, may not care for them. At that price, with that kind of music, dynamics and extension may be more important than realism.
But when reproducing acoustical music, dipole line sources have a "magic carpet" realism to them that most speakers lack.
I wouldn't call Maggies polarizing speakers, BTW. All speakers are a bit controversial and I've found personally that everyone reacts positively to the sound of planars. What's more, in my experience, that isn't generally true of most boxes, because they lack the "magic carpet" quality of being transported into another acoustical space.
Again, that doesn't mean that they are the best choice for everyone -- that realism with acoustical music may not be what people are after, and for those who do love acoustical music and can accommodate planars, there are credible alternatives in the higher price ranges, e.g., the Quads, the Kings, the Sound Labs, some of the more esoteric boxes like YG and Magico, or big yacht-priced line sources like the Genesis.
BTW, some of the techniques Magnepan has used in the 3.7 are indeed applicable to dynamics (and to some extent already used in a different frequency range). Some are applicable only to panel speakers of various kinds. And despite what you said, I haven't noticed that people who make dynamic speakers don't like panels, any more than I've noticed that the people who make panels don't like dynamic speakers. They both have their uses. But it would make little sense for every manufacturer to make every kind of speaker. Not every company wants to turn into Harman International.
By the way, you keep saying that electrostats are the best panels, but IMO, that's an oversimplification of the tradeoffs. Electrostats are more transparent than planar magnetics, yes, but the laws of physics say that they have to be huge and expensive to play loud and go deep -- Sound Labs territory. You can make hybrids as M-L does, but you'll always hear a dynamic mated to an electrostatic, it stands out like a sore thumb. And there are other issues as well, e.g., the dispersion/power response issues that are so difficult to address in stats (Quad's two mile delay line, the huge width of the Sound Labs, ML's curved diaphragm which adds distortion and causes power response problems as wavelength approaches the radius of the driver's arc).
Are Sound Labs better than the 1.7? No doubt. But at $50,000 rather than $2,000, they ought to be. The Apogees, too, were more expensive speakers, in fact so expensive to build and service that the company went out of business.
Again, I think what Magnepan is trying to protect here is the 3.7, not the 1.7, which uses a related technique with different means in a different frequency range. And as I said, not every speaker maker buys and measures every competitive speaker made, it would be a waste of time and money. Whereas just about every speaker maker does see JA's measurements in Stereophile. And yeah, if they see something unusual in those measurements, they're going to say "What's this?" and buy a pair.
I doubt very much that a domestic manufacturer could make and sell Maggies for half the price, as you suggest. You'd either have to make a carbon copy clone or master a lot of "black art" technology, and even if you made a carbon copy you'd need custom manufacturing facilities and experience. (And how many audio manufacturers do that? I can think of only one in audio, a big German semi-pro manufacturer with a reputation for stealing the designs of others, sometimes even to the point of copying circuit boards.) In the end, you'd end up putting more engineering effort into the planar than Magnepan does. And then you'd have to match their economies of scale, and overcome the fact that they have a big dealer network and a universally-known name.
In this sort of market, people generally enter because they want to fill a different niche. That's what Apogee did when they entered the planar/ribbon market at the high end, and Eminent Technology, in its own planar magnetic niche, and BG and Wisdom, in theirs.
Edits: 03/20/12
--- I can't speak to the standards of reviewers. However, these guys do listen to the best equipment made and, really, I don't see many raves of the kind that greeted the 1.7. ---I also listen to the best equipment made - I disagree with their take on the sound at the show.
---- A brief show encounter doesn't provide all the listening experience a critic would need for a full review, of course, but you were the one who mentioned CES and said the sound of the 1.7 was "mediocre" there. Forex, you mention levels. As I recall, in his review of the 1.7, Jon Valin said that the upper midrange got a bit hard when levels were pushed to extremes. ----
I know John loves them but I disagree with John based on what was presented under show conditions. Not being a diehard panel fan I was not giving them the "benefit of the doubt" because I've heard the brand for 20 years in many different rooms and with different front ends. At the show they didn't play them loud - the didn't play anything difficult and there was zero "magic carpet" realism.
---- You've been to CES so you know how much "also ran" sound you hear their -- often the fault of room acoustics and hurried setup. But not many loudspeakers garner the kind of enthusiastic praise the 1.7 did. ---
Some of the best sound I have ever heard has been under show conditions so I don't buy the "rooms are bad" bit because they're typical of home owner's homes. Built with the same materials. So what is the excuse - hurried set-up - umm they are provided the room dimensions before they go (they get the blue-print). They know the size shape and they can phone ahead to ask about furniture or placement of air conditioners. And again some companies go to these shows and consistently get first rate sound.
"I've found personally that everyone reacts positively to the sound of planars. What's more, in my experience, that isn't generally true of most boxes, because they lack the "magic carpet" quality of being transported into another acoustical space."
We know different people - personally I know of no one that feels that way about them. They all listen to classical music and they all own dynamic speakers. Let's add up all the audiophiles who listen to classical music who have the space for panels and who instead have bought a non-panel shall we? You won't like the numbers. I agree with your comparisons on $2k Maggie and $50k Soundlab - I didn't hear anything remotely good in the Soundlab room at CES either.
And before you say - room acoustics - the King Sounds made my top 5 rooms (under $10k) at CES in the same/similar rooms. And again in a different location with better electronics and my music I was able to get good results from the 1.7. But I didn't get "magic Carpet performance from them - or any panel at any price that I've ever heard - on acoustic umamplified classical or jazz music. The fact they also can't rock or have any dynamics or frequency extension cost a lot require massive (usually SS amps), take up too much space are all just added irritations.
The 1.7 and King Sound Prince/King panels are the only panels I would personally consider owning. The price is low enough - and the performance good enough. Beyond those prices boxed designs walk all over them for any music including classical IMO and IME. Apparently not everyone agrees with me - shudder the thought - but that's fine that's why there are bazillions of loudspeakers on the market.
I never said someone would make Magnepans at half the price. The assertion in this entire thread is that Magnepan doesn't want their ribbon technology stolen. Well they must think someone could steal it and then make it for less money no? Why else would they worry?
They can;t be worried over bad measurments - panels always look terrible in the measurements and then JA will say "we can't measure panels properly" implying that if they could he THINKS they would be ruler flat on and off axis with no phase and zero distortion. I just want to see someone measure them where there can be no excuses.
The only measurement that matters at all is the one at the listening position (at the ear) in room. Some speaker may sound great in a quasi (no room) graph but stink it up when you actually put some real world walls around. Speakers need to be designed to operate in the "typical" living room. How it does in a chamber is irrelevant - Saying - sell sir your room is the typical 8-10 foot ceiling - our speakers suck in those rooms which account for 99.999999% of all rooms on the planet - they only work if the ceiling is 11.234592 feet high and only if they are 3.572392 feet from each side wall and only with a $70,000 4kw Krell on a Tuesday in months with 31 days.
I get real tired of those kinds of products.
I use Audio Note as a counter to the argument.
When a Wes Philips can walk into an Audio Note room and proclaim it as the best listening experience he's ever had in a room they set-up in a day with ZERO acoustic treatments - and probably ZERO in the way of stands in a CES style room then the room can't be used as an excuse I'm sorry to say. Cause that means it sounded better in a CES hotel room than gear he heard previously in dedicated sound rooms in all the years prior.
I have real problems with the silly notions that "if you listen to unamplified classical then it's an automatic panel." No sorry - the first evaluation pieces of music I use is classical and jazz, Indeed the guys who buy Audio Note are primarily classical and Jazz music listeners. They are bought FOR that music. The fact that they don't stink at everything else is a nice bonus.
I don't JUST listen to classical string quartets but that doesn't mean I'm a pop guy. I simply have higher standards and don't want speakers that choose what I can and can't listen to. If I was a mainly rock listener I would not buy Audio Note - others do it louder and bigger and bolder.
And before someone gets on my about Audio Note well this applies for me for other boxed speakers as well. I would rather listen to classical unamplified music on speakers from Usher (Be10), Sony's flagship, Acoustic Zen, Teresonic, Trenner and Freidl, Tannoy, Harbeth, Silbatone, Magico (though not at the price), Linn's flagship and many many others.
And like PG I was initially impressed - when I first heard a panel I was "wowed" - they have an entirely different presentation - if you like it then go for it - but like PG after awhile I have trouble with them.
And some reviewers have directly compared boxes to magnepan (read what Richard Greene (TAS) thinks about comparing the sound of a Piano on Harbeth versus a Magnepan). To me there is absolutely no comparison between them when it comes to reproducing real instruments IMO. Greene didn't point out the fact that the Harbeth 40.1 was 6-7 times the money.
RG
"Of course no speaker sounds exactly like a piano. But the Harbeths
are a lot closer to my ears than the Magneplanars."The cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.7) is extremely clean in the tweeter's passband"
"The mid- and high-treble regions, however, appear to have some delayed energy problems"
Did you guess? The former is the Harbeth M40.1 --the speaker that lacks snap according to Tony and does not decay correctly according to MW. The latter is the Magneplanar 1.6"
Further I recently read a review in Stereophile where Brian Damkroger noted that Magnepan's 1.7 could not match the midrange realism of the similarly priced Harbeth P3ESR.It's not like the Magnepan is any bass or treble champ you buy them for midrange and you now have two reviewers at two magazines that think a boxed speaker has better midrange. In fact you have three because based on what I have heard from Harbeth I would concur.
Edits: 03/22/12 03/22/12
Dear RGA
I own Harbeth HL5's and PK rebuilt Quad 57's. I respect Audio Note, however, while they have a few modestly priced 'lines', they are known for far more expensive gear and parts. See the $49,000 transport or the DAC for $111,000, $29,000 speaker cables, etc. Magnepan may not suit everyone - nothing does, but I think they are one of the good guys. Perhaps their loyal following can get be a bit too enthusiastic for your tastes.
Then again PQ has never been accused of being a wallflower. For true zealotry look no further than the Naim forum and I say that owning a good bit of their gear.
Cheers,
BenE
BenAgain I want to be clear - cause sometimes I get into these debates and I'm coming at it in absolute terms not with the eye on the price.
So I repeat - out of all the loudspeakers I have heard (edit: in the price range) I would rank the 1.7 in the top 5. I've heard a helluva lot of speakers in that price range so it's high praise. I, in fact, like them more than the people selling the things. I found myself defending them to the owner of the store carrying the line!
I know what it is the fans of them are hearing (or not hearing) that makes them fans. I don't quite buy into them (in absolute terms) otherwise I'd own them. If I was looking in the sub $2k range they'd be in the running. And they enter the running after I heard how good they sounded with an entryish level AN amp (Soro SE). The Soro is ballsier than the OTO. I was surprised in fact at how good the combination was given everything I always read about them needing kilowatt $50,000 amps to sound good.
I also get the sense that plenty of reviewers are too afraid to call them out for fear of backlash. You have to say they're the best at the price or else suffer the wrath of endless forum debate. There is a guy on the main page angry at Stereophile that ARC isn't represented well and that if ARC isn't there then the entire review industry is on crack cause apparently nothing is better and any amount more expensive than an ARC is rubbish jewelry.
The thing about being known for the super high priced stuff is that the only way to get close to the sound of their top system is via their mid/low level systems.
I said this awhile back on the speaker forum with regards to house sounds. Vandersteen makes $50k loudspeakers and ones under $5k. If you own the $3k model and you LOVE it and think it's the best thing around - you go out and you hear a similar voiced speaker in the $50k model but it's far better - the Vandersteen sound is there but on a whole other level.
If you don't buy into the Vandersteen sound then you will likely find the $50k model obscene. The thing is though that that model is only really relevant to the people who buy into the sound they're after. It applies to AN, Harbeth, Sonus Faber, B&W, Magnepan and most everyone else.
AN makes SETs - chances are if you like SETs you are going to like AN - you may like Shindo more or something else but you're generally buying into the sort of presentation it offers and whatever it is that SET possesses - be it superior transient response, more natural no switching non feedback presentation or soft second harmonic distortion when pushed beyond its limits - nothing else will do.
So while the AN digital gear that is crazy prices the only way you can remotely get anywhere close to the sound of the DAC 5 is by buying whatever you can afford - for me that would be a Dac 2.1. You can't get the sound from anyone else at any price because no one else makes CD replay in the same way with the same parts.
It goes to speakers. If you like the sort of presentation that Magnepan puts out then you will probably place a higher personal value on their top of the line models. An owner who has a 1.7 will buy the 20.1. But I would simply pause and say that while the 1.7 kicks a lot of ass at $1900 - largely because most of the boxed designs suck at $1900 it is quite a different market at $15,000. Plenty of brands here that don't even offer stuff at $1900.
And that is why I can say the 1.7 is a winner cause against the competition it destroys most of it - but the 20.1 isn't up against a bunch of meatballs.
Edits: 03/29/12
> I also get the sense that plenty of reviewers are too afraid to call them
> out for fear of backlash. You have to say they're the best at the price or
> else suffer the wrath of endless forum debate.
Please note that what is said on these forums has no effect on my editorial
decisions.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well, of course, it doesn't, John, there are few, if any, advertisers here.
> > Please note that what is said on these forums has no effect on my editorial
> > decisions.
>
> Well, of course, it doesn't, John, there are few, if any, advertisers here.
Ah, the inevitable snarky comment from the peanut gallery. You forgot the
smiley.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sorry, mate, I suppose that was a bit rash. I do like your magazine, truth be told. You give freedom to your writers to express their impressions and favorites and write whatever they want to write about on the subject, it appears. And I do like your writers. I seldom read your magazine reviews, however. Lemme ask you a question? Do you review product of designers who don't advertise with you? How often, would then be my question? Must I continue to read the columns for that? Which I am grateful to be able to do, btw.
Edits: 03/29/12 03/29/12 03/29/12
> Do you review product of designers who don't advertise with you?
> How often, would then be my question?
Around 50% of the components reviewed in Stereophile are from
non-advertisers. The same proportion applies to products featured on the
magazine's cover and to those recommended in our bi-annual "Recommended
Components" listing. The detailed statistics have been posted here in
Critic's Corner on several occasions.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
So, readers could look thru old issues and verify for themselves? That's very commendable and I probably couldn't or wouldn't do better myself. What more can I say? Fifty percent of non advertisers on your covers? Consider me humbled and impressed.
Edits: 03/29/12 03/29/12
> Sorry, mate, I suppose that was a bit rash.
No problem. I am just weary of this meme keeping raising its head. Just
last week a manufacturer told me that as he had been supporting
Stereophile with ads, he expected a review to be forthcoming. Upon
being told that was _not_ how things worked, he canceled his
advertising. :-(
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Maestro, thank you for your reply. I did modify my original post in the interim, however.
"I disagree with their take on the sound at the show."
No problem, we all have the right to an opinion. At the same time, you made a blanket statement about their sound that was quite different than what everyone else did, including critics whose ears I've come to know and trust. So you'll understand my personal skepticism.
"Some of the best sound I have ever heard has been under show conditions so I don't buy the "rooms are bad" bit."
Try talking to an exhibitor sometime. Note that the same component can sound good at one show, bad at the next -- same equipment, different room. The general rule with show sound is a bad component won't sound good, but a good component can sound bad. And looking at a picture of a room doesn't allow you to plan setup, not of speakers.
I am not talking about what people own. I am talking about the way people react to the sound of planars, specifically, my planars. And I'm talking about everyone from a construction guy (he bent some metal for my speaker stands, so I figured he should get to hear what he did) to the director of North American recording activities at Sony Classical. For owners of all but the most esoteric dynamic speakers, a pair of properly set up planars is a revelation.
If you've never heard the "magic carpet" effect with a panel, I gotta confess, I don't know what you're hearing. Seriously, this just isn't possible. Line source dipoles have an uncanny ability to transport the listener into a different acoustic venue. Everyone hears this.
Now when you start saying Sound Labs aren't remotely good . . . well . . .
"The only measurement that matters at all is the one at the listening position (at the ear) in room."
I couldn't agree more. Way back when, I said to JA here that I thought the quirks of the nearfield planar measurements didn't matter because people knew enough to read and understand his caveats. Experience has told me how wrong I was. I'm increasingly thinking that if I were JA, I'd leave out the nearfield planar measurements, and send them upon request only to people who know what Fequal is, and why it's impossible to make a clean waterfall plot of a large diaphragm speaker without a tower or an anechoic chamber, and why even then, in the absence of room reflections, the significance of the measurement is somewhat hard to ascertain because of delayed arrivals from the driver's periphery.
[Well, I almost couldn't agree more, the mic doesn't actually quite measure what the ear does, see Toole et al -- they've developed an algorithm that incorporates on-axis and polar measurements to produce an order of merit that correlates well with subjective impressions, up to 95% IIRC.]
In that context, see the second curve here, the in-room measurements of the little MMG:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles.htm
And ditto for the MG IIIa, an early version of the 3.7:
http://www.apogeespeakers.com/reviews/the_flat_response_stereophile_review.htm
Note how well the in-room response of the IIIa's compares to the other speakers measured, the Duetta and the CLS. That right there is one reason people who really know the sound of live acoustical music love Maggies. And in-room measurements are something that any audiophile can understand. I've been meaning to ask JA why we don't see more of them.
However, I can't agree with what you say about rooms. If anything, dipole line sources are more tolerant of bad room acoustics and untreated rooms than boxes, because they excite fewer room modes and reflections. But they are less tolerant of bad placement, and that means that there are rooms in which a box, or one of the on-wall Maggies are the best solution (typically overlooked by audiophiles because they associate them with home theater but according to Magnepan's Wendell Diller of comparable quality in blind tests).
Most box/Maggie comparisons aren't flattering to the boxes. I'm not sure this means anything. Boxes vary widely in cost and quality. If you want to compare $70,000 Magicos to $2,000 1.7's, be my guest, but I'm not sure that that's a particularly meaningful exercise, except insofar as it points out how remarkably close a $2000 speaker can come to the best. The point with the 1.7's is that they punch above their price range, not that they're the best speaker ever made, by Magnepan or anyone else.
I looked up Brian Damkroger's review of the Harbeth's, and here's what he had to say:
"The speaker's midrange beautifully showed what good high-end audio is capable of, and why the industry exists. On the other hand, the P3ESR's lack of low bass and most of the midbass disqualifies it, for me, as a speaker for a main system. With my musical tastes, I'd be better served by a more full-range, ported design—such as the Spiral Groove Anima ($2600/pair and originally Sonics by Joachim Gerhard), reviewed by Wes Phillips in the July 2007 issue; or, if I had the room, the Magnepan MG1.7 ($1995/pair). But neither of those speakers can match the Harbeth's incredible midrange realism."
It's not hard to see why he said that, a glance at the measurements shows that the midrange is ruler flat. However, these speakers will require the purchase of subs of comparable quality and they won't play loud. Harry Potter would no doubt love the Harbeths since they would fit in his room beneath the stairs, but for most of us there's more to life than the midrange.
I'll conclude with something Jonathan Valin wrote about the 1.7's, since it sums up so well something that I perceive:
"They are intoxicatingly realistic. There is something about Maggies that simply sounds like the real thing, particularly in the midrange, particularly on voices. Maggies aren’t the only speakers that have this supreme gift (Magicos have it, too—in spades--and so do CLXes). But some combination of neutrality, coherence, transient speed, image size, dispersion, dimensionality and bloom, and resolution of texture has always made Maggies sound more real than a large percentage of their competition. Here—with the right recordings, at the right levels—that realism (at least in the midband) is very nearly as close as I’ve come to the absolute sound in my listening room, and simply unmatched for a speaker at this price point (or, really, anything even remotely close to its price point)."
> ditto for the MG IIIa, an early version of the 3.7:
> http://www.apogeespeakers.com/reviews/the_flat_response_stereophile_review.htmI would prefer people read our comments and measurements at the link
below. This reprint infringes Stereophile's copyright.> And in-room measurements are something that any audiophile can
> understand. I've been meaning to ask JA why we don't see more of them.Purely a matter of logistics. It's not possible for me to visit every reviewer
every time when they are working on a speaker review. For obvious
reasons, I do include the room response in my own speaker reviews, and in
the upcoming May issue, I do so with my review of the Quad ESL-2805.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 03/24/12
OK, thanks, that makes sense.
When reviewing dipoles, would it be possible to send the reviewer a care package in the form of a netbook and an inexpensive calibrated mic, and step-by-step instructions for in-room measurements?
I didn't know you were reviewing the Quad. I'm looking forward to that.
Concise and well said. My recollection of the Magnepan issue was a bit faulty. Thanks for the link.
> I have no idea what proprietary information Diller thinks would be revealed.
It concerned the speaker's dispersion.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
There can be proprietary design principles and proprietary manufacturing techniques, but there can be no proprietary performance information for widely marketed products, when it comes to "performance" that can be objectively measured. If you believe in separation of editorial from advertising, then you must believe that you work for your readers and not for manufacturers. Accordingly, you should take a manufacturer's censorship request as a "red flag" that causes you to procure product, conduct measurements and publish the results.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> If you believe in separation of editorial from advertising, then you must
> believe that you work for your readers and not for manufacturers.
I have said many times on this forum that that is the case, and both I and
others have produced statistics showing that that is indeed the case.
> Accordingly, you should take a manufacturer's censorship request as a "red
> flag" that causes you to procure product, conduct measurements and publish
> the results.
Thank you for the suggestion. It is not as easy as you might think.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
While I enjoying bashing the press as much as the next phile, I have, over the years found many pieces of equipment to sound dramatically different from one combination, room, etc. to another. Thus, I understand press reluctance to completely thrash a product when they may not be hearing it in optimal circumstances/combinations. Conspiracy theories abound about who (manufacturers) is sleeping with who, and will likely continue for the forseeable future. I find little time to speculate about such things....cuts into listening time. I enjoy the mags as they give their opinion
and I find this entertaining, not my impression of what sounds good. I disagree with many of their impressions, as I disagree with philes I sit next to and listen to the same system. I still want to hear their impressions and opinions despite disagreements because ultimately my opinion matters as does every listeners opinion. I trust my ears, but do not stop learning and enjoying the art of listening.
Bottom line, we only have hearing for so long, enjoy it while you can.....Jallen
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: