Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Planar Speaker Asylum

RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow

138.163.128.41

In Reply to: RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow posted by jjcarr on March 24, 2008 at 07:28:02

I couldn't agree more with your first sentence.

Regarding the series crossover......I actually tried it. I don't like it, but I understand why others might.

The PG "framing" aspect of the speakers has validity. I like what he's done with that....and the woodworking seems beautiful based on the photos I've seen.

I've modified my MMG's with a somewhat different hardwood mounting scheme that improves the coupling between frame and transducer.

Dave.

Follow Ups:

RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Jim Treanor 20:30:14 03/24/08 (2)
I reframed an MG-2A back in the 90's in red oak, securing the radiating panel to the frame with silicone caulk and screws and stiffened the frame's connection to the flat base with short angle braces (nothing at all like the struts that Peter or Grant employ in their respective products and consequently not as rigid or, in Peter's case, anywhere near as efficient in energy transfer). I kept the frame's dimensions the same as the stock unit, as I didn't want to mess around with any possible diffraction or other presentation-alteration issues that might result from making it larger.
The result I heard on familiar program material was not deeper bass per se but a tad more output and solidity in the marginally low-to-midbass region, giving the overall presentation the illusion of "more" bass output, which still nosedived below around 40 Hz (and may reflect, at least in part, interaction with my listening room). I didn't take measurements, so I had no way of quantifying the results. It seemed clear, however, that a more secure panel-to-frame connection and a difference in energy dispersal within the frame improved perceived bass quality down to the MG-2A's lower limits as I'd experienced them in this room.
I'd be interested in what your measurements indicated with your MMG's, particularly in terms of pre-to-post-mod bass output differences. If that works for you, we can do it via e-mail if that's what you prefer.
Thanks.

Jim
http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html

Edits: 03/24/08
- RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Davey 21:41:09 03/24/08 (1)
  Jim,
  
  If you send me an email I'll be glad to respond and shoot the breeze.
  
  I'm just going to continue to get beat up here so I think I'll give it a rest for a few weeks.
  
  Dave.
  - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Jim Treanor 23:21:32 03/24/08 (0)
    On the way to you.
    
    Jim
    http://www.geocities.com/jimtranr/index.html
RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - TheGoodCaptain 07:51:21 03/24/08 (43)
Oh...and which "wild claims?" Thus far I've yet to read one, but perhaps I missed them.

Robert
- RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Davey 08:08:18 03/24/08 (42)
  Well, the only "wild claim" I can recall from PG was early on when he said the MMG bass capability was increased. I can't remember exactly how he worded it.
  In any case, that is simply not physically possible because the motor system is completely unchanged. It's certainly possible/probable that the subjective bass QUALITY was improved.
  
  I think part of the problem here is the premise that opinions are invalid if a person hasn't had first hand experience (listened) to the speaker. That's the easy way out of any discussion. Playing the subjective card immediately pisses off some folks (including me) that like to look at the entire picture and not just the listening aspect.
  
  Dave.
  - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - BFitz 17:46:27 03/24/08 (1)
    "Well, the only "wild claim" I can recall from PG was early on when he said the MMG bass capability was increased. I can't remember exactly how he worded it.
    In any case, that is simply not physically possible because the motor system is completely unchanged. It's certainly possible/probable that the subjective bass QUALITY was improved."
    
    I don't post here much, but when I see something like this, I need to respond.
    
    Since when did the motor system wholly dictate bass transducer performance?
    
    For one thing, a change in the dipole baffle dimensions, making it have more area, would certainly translate to changes in dipole bass performance. Both theoretical, and measured. It's not only physically possible, it's a sure thing, and follows well known principles of acoustics. You can download free dipole prediction software, enter dimensions, and play all day long to understand the impact of baffle dimensions and bass response. Next "wild claim"?
    - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Davey 21:13:41 03/24/08 (0)
      Yes, I understand what you're saying and can understand how this can be confusing. However, remember, the transducer surface area (actually I think PG would contend the transducer surface area is increased, but remember he comments extensively that its movement is decreased) and maximum excursion capability is unchanged. This defines a physical limitation of the motor system.
      You're correct that a widening or changing of the baffle dimensions will change the dipole bass performance. Lengthening the front/back cancellation distance and thus lowering the roll-off point. That's a trade-off though. The maximum SPL capability of the system can't be increased. You could mount the transducers in an infinite baffle and totally isolate front and back. The limitation still remains. To realize higher SPL capability you have to move more air. This requires a larger diaphragm or increased excursion or both.
      Hope that answers your question.
      Dave.
      
      Edits: 03/24/08 03/24/08
  - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - TheGoodCaptain 08:33:30 03/24/08 (39)
    I think part of the problem here is the premise that opinions are invalid if a person hasn't had first hand experience (listened) to the speaker. That's the easy way out of any discussion.> > >
    
    Dave, I think it's possible to discuss ANYTHING without 1st hand experience, but in the end it's of little value beyond entertainment. The sum of the parts is impossible to know in this case.
    If Peter Gunn's mods make the panel more rigid it WILL add to the bass quality and perhaps even quantity as perceived. That's hardly a wild statement. Stand changes to my many speakers over the years had tremendous impact on bass.
    So again, we have a guy making mods to a speaker. Owners love the mods. He worked hard to create them and agrees with his buyers about the results. And then we have people who have ZERO 1st hand knowledge who want to be critical? And Mr. Gunn shouldn't be defensive? I'm defensive about it and I don't even know Peter Gunn.
    Years ago I bought a pair of Carver Amazing speakers. I told an audiophile friend about them and he practically got hysterical about the inherently poor aspects of the Carver design. He knew audio, but also heard some bad accounts. I quietly suggested that proper matching of electronics and the qualities of the room might be behind some of the bias he'd "heard" from others.
    Well guess what...he flew into town months later and heard my Carvers sitting atop their DIY stands and couldn't fathom what he'd heard or believed about the design. He bought a pair.
    
    Frankly, Peter Gunn can say his mods make the 1.6/QR's fly and write poetry. If you haven't heard them, or seen them fly, then you are talking out of your arse. I don't care what you think you know about audio because I've seen too many rules broken over the years.
    
    Just show me some unhappy customers? Surely there must be a few?
    
    Robert
    - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Davey 08:53:31 03/24/08 (38)
      Well, I guess I'm glad I'm of entertainment value for you. :)
      
      My goodness.
      
      Cheers,
      
      Dave.
      - RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - TheGoodCaptain 09:32:21 03/24/08 (37)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 08:53:31
        
        Well, I guess I'm glad I'm of entertainment value for you. :)
        
        My goodness.> > >
        
        Dave, the point is....Peter Gunn makes modifications to speakers. The customers seem to think pretty highly of them as do all those who've heard them. Looking at the mods and photos of the wood frames/Stands/Xover boxes, his work looks very good. So what is the point of debating the precise advantages of his work without actually hearing them? To then suggest that every customer is biased to the point of being unable to properly judge the speakers is even more rediculous. I've paid for mods. Some worked and some didn't. I never had a problem admitting it or hearing it, but his customers do?
        
        C'mon, folks. No one is forcing you to improve the look and sound of your speaker, or to change it at all. But it's just plain kooky to shoot down the efforts of others without knowing what you're shooting at.
        
        Happy to be entertained...as always!
        
        Robert
        
        RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow - Davey 10:01:53 03/24/08 (36)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 09:32:21
        
        I hope you're not suggesting that PG should be immune from criticism by all who have not auditioned the speakers first-hand?
        
        Also, I'm assuming your comments are not aimed at me in particular. I don't think you'll find any comments from me that suggested "every customer is biased to the point of being unable to properly judge the speakers." Any comments I've made about PG mods are either based on actual experience with my speakers (modified) or correcting misstatements that PG (or others) have made about the objective performance of the speakers. You won't see me arguing with a person's subjective evaluation of any piece of gear because, by definition, subjective evaluations are unarguable positions.
        
        As I pointed out a few weeks ago, I've made some objective measurements of the effects of the hardwood frame mounting scheme. I haven't had a chance to post these yet, but suffice it to say, they essentially confirm the claims made by PG for this aspect of his modification. Interestingly, I conversed with PG a bit about this offline wondering if he was interested in my findings. He expressed no interest in my efforts and questioned my knowledge/capability of performing the measurements. Considering that my day job involves quite a bit of instrumentation work like this, and that he has no technical knowledge in this area, I thought his comments were rather amusing.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        Dave...run while you can.... :) nt - jjcarr 10:07:14 03/24/08 (35)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Peter Gunn and the World of Tomorrow posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 10:01:53
        
        nt
        
        What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 10:08:42 03/24/08 (34)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Dave...run while you can.... :) nt posted by jjcarr on March 24, 2008 at 10:07:14
        
        .
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - jjcarr 10:10:49 03/24/08 (33)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 10:08:42
        
        It's not an attack, I mean you been jumped, and you'll have a better chance of converting the Pope to Hinduism than will of convincing TheGoodCaptain of your viewpoint. Get out while you can, this thread will only go downhill from here...
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 10:22:33 03/24/08 (32)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by jjcarr on March 24, 2008 at 10:10:49
        
        Oh, I understand that I'm not going to convince/sway anyone. :)
        
        I just happened to have a little time on my hands this morning and decided to do a little typing. Once the fanboys weigh in this thread is going to go crazy and I'll vamoose. :)
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 11:14:48 03/24/08 (31)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 10:22:33
        
        I just happened to have a little time on my hands this morning and decided to do a little typing. Once the fanboys weigh in this thread is going to go crazy and I'll vamoose. :)> > >
        
        Dave & Jcarr, how about a bit of balance in your comments? Davey, no, Peter Gunn is not above critical comments. I'd just prefer that they had some sort of actual experience behind them...any at all. Please give me your 1st hand experience with Peter Gunn's work as I'm interested in trying these mods soon.
        
        Hear that?
        
        I wonder who these "fanboys" are and how such a post about them will aid this forum. You guys are 100% correct. No way will you convince anyone of the stand-alone merits of critical comments based on...nothing beyond an obvious bias. Doesn't make sense? Then please explain why you'd lean towards being critical at all when all evidence supports the value of Mr. Gunn's efforts? Is it to be contrary?
        
        I sure can see a point....when it's based on something akin to actual listening experience with a given product. And again, let's hear from the unhappy Gunn customers.
        
        Shhhhhh...I'm listening.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 11:29:36 03/24/08 (30)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 11:14:48
        
        Did you read what I said?? Let me repeat it... I tried the series crossover as recommended by PG....I measured the response....and listened to it. I didn't like it. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?
        
        The "framing" work as described by PG I've also implemented.....with just a slightly (minor) different mounting scheme. I measured the response....and listened to it. I did like it. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?
        
        I've measured/listened to the speaker both "forwards" and "backwards" (as recommended by PG) and I like "forwards" (as used my Magnepan currently) direction better. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?
        
        Good fun.
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Dawnrazor 11:36:47 03/24/08 (29)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 11:29:36
        
        Hey Davey,
        
        You better post the picts man.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Peter Gunn 13:03:43 03/24/08 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Dawnrazor on March 24, 2008 at 11:36:47
        
        This guy wrote me the rudest request I ever recieved on how to build the stands 2 months ago, I told him I don't have plans for them, I can only answer pertinent questions and then apparently in less than 1 month he went from having no idea how to build them to having made them, tested them, (even measured them) and not liking them. (There's not even enough time to break the XO's in in that span...)
        
        Wow, it took me a month to build the very first pair, (and a year to get it right) and it's my trade. It took wazoo over 3 months to build his (and I think he had the use of a friends woodshop)
        
        In any event the entire conversation is pointless. I never expected or said EVERYONE had to do it or like it. If he doesn't, that's fine, but his not liking it in no way tarnishes the opinion of the FAR bigger pile of people who did and do. My mod is an option people can do for themselves or not as they wish. Nobody is putting a gun to anyones head, so I really have no idea what the problem is. People have decided they didn't like their mye stands and sold them, people have decided they don't even like maggies and sold them! Is there ANYTHING on this earth someone doesn't like? So what is his point?
        
        He doesn't have one. He has an obsession about me, and that's all it is.
        
        It's all about the music...
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 13:32:19 03/24/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Peter Gunn on March 24, 2008 at 13:03:43
        
        Rude? Please feel free to quote my email conversation with you word for word. I was never rude and if you recall thanked you for the information and your replies.
        
        I don't agree with some of your statements or evaluations of the product, and you don't agree with me on some of my statements. That's cool. However, don't accuse me of being rude when you KNOW I wasn't.
        
        It doesn't take me long to fabricate something with the table saw. The result isn't nearly as pretty as yours, but the functionality is perfectly fine.
        
        Obsession? You must be kidding.
        
        By the way.....I still have some interesting measurements of my MMG's modified with the frame setup per your instructions.....If you ever become interested.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 13:36:20 03/24/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 13:32:19
        
        Obsession? You must be kidding.
        
        By the way.....I still have some interesting measurements of my MMG's modified with the frame setup per your instructions.....If you ever become interested.> > >
        
        Dave, exactly what IS your point?
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 13:57:14 03/24/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 13:36:20
        
        If you had read my previous statement in this thread about PG being uninterested in my efforts and my previous (a couple of weeks ago) postings regarding same you'd know what my point is.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 14:33:20 03/24/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 13:57:14
        
        If you had read my previous statement in this thread about PG being uninterested in my efforts and my previous (a couple of weeks ago) postings regarding same you'd know what my point is.> > >
        
        I have. And to be completely honest, it does sound like you have some sort of "issue" with Mr. Gunn and his work. The fact that you've been rude here doesn't shed much doubt on his claim that you were rude to him in an e-mail. I don't see this discussion doing you or your claims much good, so why not leave it alone? My original comments were not directed at you specifically.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 15:00:25 03/24/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 14:33:20
        
        Sure I have an "issue" with some of PG's postings. You'd have to be pretty dense not to sense that. But I understand and appreciate his efforts nonetheless. (Even when he accuses me of being rude when I wasn't.)
        "Rude here?" In this thread? Please point me to my rude statements. I admit to some sarcasm in one of my previous threads where it appeared you didn't read my posting. But rude? Nah.
        You are obviously a satisfied customer. However, you're not bringing anything new to the table that hasn't been reiterated over and over and over by PG's customers. I'm working at understanding the entire scheme and attempting to improve upon on it. I've been partially successful so far, but I still have some further ideas. If these efforts are not interesting to you...or PG....then maybe you should be the one to leave the discussion alone? Or do you feel the PG-modified MMG system can't be further improved upon?
        I've made a few (measly) efforts along the way to try and help the Maggie community. Some of them are shown in the "tweaks" section, and some of those are in use by Maggie owners. My day job keeps my time pretty well filled (not today as it happens) so my contributions are not much I admit. However, at least myself and PG are in the game making attempts and not sitting on the sidelines in the cheering section.
        Cheers,
        Dave.
        
        Edits: 03/24/08
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - jjcarr 13:29:12 03/24/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Peter Gunn on March 24, 2008 at 13:03:43
        
        I just seeing this... :)
        http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=25984227 (Open in New Window)
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 12:51:19 03/24/08 (21)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Dawnrazor on March 24, 2008 at 11:36:47
        
        Did you read what I said?? Let me repeat it... I tried the series crossover as recommended by PG....I measured the response....and listened to it. I didn't like it. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?
        
        The "framing" work as described by PG I've also implemented.....with just a slightly (minor) different mounting scheme. I measured the response....and listened to it. I did like it. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?
        
        I've measured/listened to the speaker both "forwards" and "backwards" (as recommended by PG) and I like "forwards" (as used my Magnepan currently) direction better. Is that not "first-hand" enough for you?> > >
        
        Davey, I had no idea you had copied so exactly the stand/framing and crossover system used by Peter Gunn. If that's the case and you have essentially had the same speaker, then I except your comments.
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - MaggieLover 15:03:43 03/24/08 (20)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 12:51:19
        
        Even with general plans from PG, a crossover based on his specs and so on, there is no reason at assume the finished product is identical to what PG would have produced.
        
        In manufacturing there are many products that are copies of someone else's design. As we all know, they are called knock offs. Generally, knockoffs are inferior to the original product they're copied from, but not always. Davey's version may in fact be the sonic equal of PGs, or may not. Without a direct comparison, no one, including Davey can be 100% certain. Even if it is identical, its just an indication that Davey prefers something different. It doesn't invalidate PGs design.
        
        Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
        
        Mark
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 15:30:29 03/24/08 (19)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by MaggieLover on March 24, 2008 at 15:03:43
        
        Without a direct comparison, no one, including Davey can be 100% certain. Even if it is identical, its just an indication that Davey prefers something different. It doesn't invalidate PGs design.> > >
        
        Of course. I was being a bit sarcastic. There's virtually no way Davey's mods sounded like the Gunned speakers. I have a friend that copied plans for a subwoofer. Almost everything was the same, cabinet and driver and the Xover, yet it sounded nothing like the original version I heard. Why did they sound different? Glue? Where the wood came from? Who knew. And that was a subwoofer, not something nearly as transparent as a planar speaker.
        Davey has NO idea of what Gunned speakers sound like. And that's that.
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 15:45:48 03/24/08 (18)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 15:30:29
        
        "There's virtually no way Davey's mods sounded like the Gunned speakers." Really? How close do you think they are? 50%? 10%? 99%?
        Maybe I've achieved a result already that's superior to PG's? Would you allow for that possibility?
        "And that's that." :) It just so easy/convenient to dismiss and explain away everything with statements like that isn't it? (Rhetorical question.)
        Cheers,
        Dave.
        
        Edits: 03/24/08
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - MaggieLover 16:58:48 03/24/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 15:45:48
        
        I agree. Just for the record, you probably did a good job of recreating the essentials of the design. Your version could even be "superior" to PG's. I put superior in quotes only to denote that in the case of loudspeakers this is, to a large degree, a subjective term.
        
        My point in my earlier post was that without a direct comparison, no one can be certain they sound identical or even close. I hope you did not take my comments as a criticism of what you accomplished. Having not heard PG's or your efforts with my own ears, it would disingenuous of me to take sides or to praise or criticize either of you.
        
        Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
        
        Mark
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 18:33:06 03/24/08 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by MaggieLover on March 24, 2008 at 16:58:48
        
        Yep, I understood your comments completely. Well said.
        
        I didn't re-create PG's efforts exactly so...by definition...they must be different somehow. However, I kept to the essential concept of the modification so I believe the performance must be highly similar. I used some Red Oak right off the shelf from my local Lowe's with the frame dimensions as specified by PG.
        
        That stuff about all the time involved and there not being enough time for me to complete this project is ridiculous.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        Wow... - Rod H. 18:24:23 03/28/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 18:33:06
        
        I just got back from a trip and decided to check the site.
        
        Looks like it's hit the fan again here.
        
        I don't see any reason a skilled person couldn't knock out a functional pair of oak frames in an afternoon. They wouldn't be beautiful, but should be functional. As has been said here more than once, any type of hardwood is superior to MDF, so if the dimensions are right the results should be fine.
        
        The hardwood itself is what has the special properties, not the finish I assume.
        
        Rod
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - MaggieLover 20:26:46 03/24/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 18:33:06
        
        Although it appears the end result did not satisfy you, were your mods an improvement over the stock version in your opinion?
        
        Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
        
        Mark
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 21:00:03 03/24/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by MaggieLover on March 24, 2008 at 20:26:46
        
        The end result does satisfy me. I'm not sure how that misconception has started. The hardwood framing of the transducer achieves a valid improvement in the sound of the system. There's no doubt about that.
        
        I don't like the electrical alignment of the PG crossover. I like an alternative one that I've come up with much better. And of course, I've switched to a line-level crossover ultimately since I don't have any interest in long-term usage of high-level passives. However, I did construct and measure a passive, series crossover for a point of reference.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - MaggieLover 22:00:20 03/24/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 21:00:03
        
        Thanks for the feedback.
        
        Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
        
        Mark
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 16:06:35 03/24/08 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 15:45:48
        
        "There's virtually no way Davey's mods sounded like the Gunned speakers." Really? How close do you think they are? 50%? 10%? 99%?> >
        
        We don't know, but it's unlikely you have any valid point here regarding Gunned Magnepans. You've done your own tweaks. That's great. But don't act like the Gunn mods are something your familiar with 1st hand. You're in NO position to judge them at all.
        
        < < > >
        
        Sure. But what does that have to do with anything. Still not sure what your beef is with Peter Gunn, but perhaps you should call him and work it out. Maybe send him flowers.
        
        < < < > > >
        
        About as easy as adding "rhetorical" at the end of an empty and pointless series of comments and hoping no one notices.
        Do let us all know if you get to hear a pair of Gunned Magnepans. Until that point in time your comments are purely speculative.
        
        I'm outa this thread. I'll let Davey have the last word. NO doubt he needs to have it, so let him go. My apologies to Mister Gunn, but I do think this thread exposed something useful in the end, even if it's not directly related to my speakers!
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Peter Gunn 16:58:07 03/24/08 (10)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by TheGoodCaptain on March 24, 2008 at 16:06:35
        
        Well, at the very least this thread made an interesting swirl on the page.
        
        As far as davey goes I am no longer going to bother talking to him, which is why I am responding to you. He went from, lets say being a pin prick on here about my mods to doing the same thru unsolicited emails directly, and from the outset it was obvious he didn't care, didn't believe, and was only going thru the motions so he could say he did it and then complain about it. Never once did I ever believe he was really interested, and it was pretty obvious.
        
        He wrote me a brief, terse email 2 months ago that literally said little more than "tell me how to build your stands". (no hello or thank you) When I told him I could not and explained why he wrote other people telling them how rude and un-helpfull I was to him! (I know this because they told me)
        
        Yet magically, in another unsolicited email from him a month after this he "let slip" how he knew my stands sucked, "because he built them". I never even bothered responding.
        
        Even if he made them in a week (which assumes he did not go to work for that whole week, and we are still assuming a LOT (like he had all the parts he needed even before he knew what to do) that only gives him 3 weeks. It takes 300 hours for the XO to break in, so he would have had to play them almost 15 hours a day just to reach full break in in a month. He not only did all this, but he tested them, measured them, and did all this other stuff (except take a picture) whereupon he immediately deduced "it doesn't sound good". I guess he didn't work for the whole month.
        
        He doesn't even say why, it's just "not as good as the other way".
        
        Some people might look at this and deduce his biggest fault is he's a liar, as he could not have made, broken in, and tested them in less than 30 days as he claims. I don't think that's his biggest problem.
        
        The fact is that if he's NOT lying, he really thinks maggies turned the wrong way in mdf frames with who knows what XO sound better than my way. In which case I can only say he has to be the most tone deaf person I have ever met, and my advice to him is sell his gear, and go buy whatever is on sale at best buy because pal, it doesn't matter what gear you own.
        
        Two people on here have divulged that industry insiders have heard my speakers and said they can compete against anything. Anything. But according to Davey they suck.
        
        The Captain is right kid, we've heard all we need to hear and everyone can decide for themselves, and I'm terribly sorry what I do didn't "do it" for you. Now have whatever reply you need to get in, however I have no desire to read it or reply to it.
        
        It's all about the music...
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 18:08:52 03/24/08 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Peter Gunn on March 24, 2008 at 16:58:07
        
        Well, you've got quite the imagination Mister Gunn. Show me anywhere on this forum where I said your speakers "suck." Please point me to it. I'm actually fairly impressed with the speakers. Certainly better than stock. If you'd read what I said vice what you want to believe I said there wouldn't be so much mis-understanding on your part.
        
        I wrote a terse email and didn't bother to say "thank you?" I think you better re-read those emails Mr. Gunn.
        
        I never once said your "stands sucked." Not in any email, and not on this forum. In fact, the stands are the most impressive part of your modification. If you would bother to re-read my comments since that time frame you'll see that I agree with you that this is a worthwhile part of the modification. I even confimred it with some objective evalutions.
        
        If you think a crossover takes 300 hours to break in you're in dreamland. The frame I turned out in about two hours...not counting glue drying time. Not as pleasing as yours aesthetically, but functional nonetheless.
        
        Here's a photo: The companion woofers turn the system into a three-way for much improved performance but are moved out of the way when using the MMG's exclusively. There's a little piece to fill that hole in the bottom, but I didn't have it installed for this photo.
        
        Cheers,
        
        Dave.
        
        fair square - Peter Gunn 07:25:43 03/26/08 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Davey on March 24, 2008 at 18:08:52
        
        This reply was generated because of a talk I had with a friend who feels we both are at odds and for the wrong reasons.
        
        First, you have to understand that there is a rediculous number of people who apparently have nothing better to do than give me grief, or try to ever since this "mod" of mine went from being just mine to everyones. (like the person from the netherlands posting that his speakers are shaking as his warranty is void)
        
        Some are overtly and obviously hostile. Some are more sublime, and instead of attacking get their glee from wasting huge amounts of my time.
        
        IMHO many of your "contacts" with me (here or thru email) had an air at times about them of someone who was trying to drag me along for his jollies. Maybe you didn't think so or mean it, but they did. I forwarded some of your letters to friends asking "is it him or me" and their replies were that your motives were not always clear and some tone seemed to be there at times, and occasionally some rudeness expressed by being very short and/or thankless.
        
        I admit I may have been wrong in my perceptions, but that is how I began to perceive it, and my time being so short when that happened I simply cut you off and no longer read your posts or emails at all. I offer my apology for both of those things, but for your own future reference I (and those I showed them to) thought your "wording" often came across as left handed and circumspect, even though you may not have thought so or intended it. (For example, yes, you "thanked me" but only after going to others and complaining that I didn't help you, and the email you sent "asking" for help didn't ask, it had a demanding tone and it also had no thank you)
        
        But lets consider all that what it is, water under the bridge.
        
        As for ther mod, first the XO. If you don't like the XO, that's a matter of taste. It surprises me (and makes me question what it is you listen for) but neither of us is right or wrong in that regard. In any event having done work in that area yourself I can only wonder if there was any need for you to even bother, as it was not something you were unfamiliar with and you probably knew you weren't going to like it going in, so the exercise seems pointless to begin with. A majority may prefer a certain XO, but even then, one cannot say there is one "right" one.
        
        As for the XO taking 300 hours, I suggest you put the time in and listen. I have heard it happen, and many of my customers and other DIYer's who did it themselves write me at that time to tell me of the sudden unexpected change around that hour mark. In fact many high end manufacturers also say it (my Hovland preamp also did indeed take that long to break in, and the change was very obvious when it happened) so I'm not sure why you doubt this. Again, this is why I brushed claims made in a month aside.
        
        OK, now the sucking part :^ ) True enough, that was not the word you used, but in one of the unsolicited emails you sent me, you intimated that my mod was "not all that I thought it was" and that you had measurements and asked if I wanted to know why. I replied and asked when did you hear a pair, whereupon you then said "Hear? I made them."
        
        Now, given what I wrote above, WHY would I invite myself to that table? Your motives to me at that time were suspect, you wrote me out of the blue giving me dribbles at a time, and dribbles that seemed to be doing nothing other than setting me up for a fall I didn't need or believe.
        
        As for the photo, it is a frame of wood but the similarity between it and what I do ends right there. I have very big issues not only with it being hung from the ceiling (which is a terrible thing to do) but it being verticle as well. There's no support, it's not coupled to the floor, and it's not at the correct angle. (or possibly height) Anything you measured off of it setup that way would indeed be lacking I suspect. (I also don't know why it's made like stilts, and where is the XO box? How is it supported? That makes a HUGE difference on how they sound)
        
        In closing, while I appreciate the effort to try to absorb what I do, and I am glad there are aspects you do like, and I am glad your intent was never to "bugger" me, I can say your attempt is not even remotely close enough to give you a true idea what my finished mod really sounds like. I don't mean this abrasively, but the smallest points matter a great deal in how it sounds when it comes together and what you made is a vague facsimile, not the actual thing. I hope one day you get to hear an actual pair made by me. You may or may not like it any more than yours, but at least you'll have heard what I intended.
        
        Again, 1,000 apologies for my bastard-like behavior.
        
        It's all about the music...
        
        RE: fair square - MaggieLover 17:01:22 03/26/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: fair square posted by Peter Gunn on March 26, 2008 at 07:25:43
        
        "Again, 1,000 apologies for my bastard-like behavior" Be still my heart, I have been to the mountain top. I wish all the discourses on this forum could be as civil as this last between you and Davey. Best regards to you both.
        
        Maggies, because you can never be too thin!
        
        Mark
        
        RE: fair square - Davey 14:38:39 03/26/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: fair square posted by Peter Gunn on March 26, 2008 at 07:25:43
        
        PG,
        Well, you can dismiss my effort out of hand based on my low resolution photo but I believe I did it right.
        The baffle dimensions are the same as yours...the transducer mechanical coupling to the frame is the same...the crossover I used (components broken-in previously with MANY hours) is the same.
        The measurements/observations I made confirm the "action" of the framework as far as energy transfer. I auditioned the system vertically and slanted. If you look closer at the photo you'll see that they aren't suspended from the ceiling, but just resting against another set of speakers that are behind. (I just put them there for the photo opportunity.)
        Actually, suspending speakers from the ceiling can be an excellent solution depending upon the type of speakers and various other factors. That's another topic.
        It's a valid effort (although not identical) to evaluate your modificaton. If the fact that it's not TOTALLY identical completely invalidates (in your mind) my efforts then there's not much I can do about that. :)
        Your comment that my attempt "is not even remotely close enough to give you a true idea......." is pure speculation. (As are many of your comments about various topics on this forum.)
        Regarding me "absorbing" what you do: There wasn't any absorption necessary. I completely understand the concept, and I completely understand the implementation. Your condescension is unbecoming.
        I appreciate your efforts in modding the Maggie systems. It's good work.
        As I said in another posting.....you're not sitting on the sidelines, but in the game working at it. That's much better than most who post on this forum.
        There is no apology necessary. You are what you are. A person shouldn't have to apologize for that.
        My only request would be that in the future if you regurgitate any conversations we had (or might have) offline that you do it accurately and not mis-state me.
        Cheers,
        Dave.
        
        Edits: 03/26/08
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Planar Owner 18:02:53 03/24/08 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Peter Gunn on March 24, 2008 at 16:58:07
        
        You know what PG, that last post of yours was really classless. As a "manufacturer" you should learn to rise above any petty dissing of your products and learn to keep your mouth shut. If they're as good as you say they are then you'll no doubt be successful. All your defensive rhetoric just makes you look like a fool, trying to protect the good name of a product at all costs, even if it means adopting the same childish behavior that your detractors use.
        As a long time owner of magnepan products, I saw your involvement in these forums as a breath of fresh air, initially. Now you've become as annoying as the trolls with whom like like to spar with on every occasion possible.
        
        I'm sure you or someone will pick this message apart, using quotation marks and explaining with reference to other posts how wrong I am. Well good luck with that one.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Peter Gunn 06:00:44 03/25/08 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Planar Owner on March 24, 2008 at 18:02:53
        
        You're right of course, but I'm only human too. I'm still a joiner, and because what I tend to make most often has changed hasn't suddenly instilled me with the patience of Job.... :^ )
        
        However you'll note I didn't get involved in this and only eventually decided to because he kept mis-quoting personal events between him and I that only I could verify, and since he wasn't being honest I felt he needed to be corrected.
        
        Now he'll respond saying I'm a liar but as you say, I don't care and I am done with this thread too.
        
        It's all about the music...
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 06:34:53 03/25/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Peter Gunn on March 25, 2008 at 06:00:44
        
        PG,
        
        Please re-read the email conversation we had. I can forward it to you if you've deleted it. I re-read it last night and IMHO it's relatively cordial from both ends.
        
        Dave.
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 05:58:19 03/25/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Planar Owner on March 24, 2008 at 18:02:53
        
        I'm sure you or someone will pick this message apart, using quotation marks and explaining with reference to other posts how wrong I am. Well good luck with that one.> > > >
        
        There's punctuation after "well."
        
        See, you were right!
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - TheGoodCaptain 18:38:59 03/24/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Planar Owner on March 24, 2008 at 18:02:53
        
        Davey, Mister Gunn and everyone....
        
        Let's kill this thread. Forget it. One can only stay classy for so long in these dumb battles, so before we all call out each other's grandmothers, let's put a stop to it.
        
        For the love of music and Maggies!
        
        And it's Monday fer cripes sake...so let's chill and let it all fade into history.
        
        Goodnight....and check out the very complex Metis remote that came with my Rogue Preamp. There were no directions on how to use it.
        
        Robert
        
        RE: What's that supposed to mean? - Davey 18:36:48 03/24/08 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What's that supposed to mean? posted by Planar Owner on March 24, 2008 at 18:02:53
        
        Well said. You managed to name-call and insult everyone involved with just a few sentences.
        
        Dave.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]