Planar Speaker Asylum

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

Planar Speaker Asylum

RE: 3.7's vs MG20

64.252.147.184

In Reply to: RE: 3.7's vs MG20 posted by Norman M on September 06, 2012 at 08:23:46

Because by convention an apostrophe is used before the "s" is the plural form of an abbreviation. As in "WMD's" for "weapons of mass destruction."

Follow Ups:

RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - Norman M 14:43:39 09/06/12 (8)
Thanks, but I still don't understand it and don't believe I ever came across WMD's, However I will carefully look for it. The plural understood in this case is the "W", meaning weapons, which should then be W'MD according to your suggested usage.
In the case of searching for posts about a particular speaker in this group should I also write I will be searching for post's?
- RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - josh358 19:09:08 09/06/12 (7)
  I was taught in school to use apostrophes with the plural of abbreviations, as well as with the plural of numerals ("67's") and letters ("Mind your p's and q's."). I did a quick search and it seems that usage varies, with rules that are sometimes arcane, e.g., both the New York Times and the Chicago Manual of Style apparently favor use of the apostrophe after abbreviations when periods are used, e.g., "W.M.D.'s," but not when they aren't, e.g., "WMDs":
  
  http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/faqs-on-style/
  
  As I said, arcane.
  
  Model designations aren't always abbreviations, and I didn't see any reference to them. I looked at some of the topic headings on the Asylum and it seems usage is split -- about half of them used the apostrophe, half didn't. One argument for using it I think would be that there's no ambiguity if the model designation itself has a trailing "s." Not a problem if the letter is capitalized, as it usually is, but it isn't always.
  
  Anyway, that wasn't on my mind, I never thought about it, just automatically followed the style I'd learned for abbreviations.
  - RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - D Domaster 22:47:18 09/06/12 (6)
    If I'm not wrong, a MG20 is basically a 3.6 with a bigger bass panel. Therefore, its up to you to decide if more/better bass is more important or the improvements in seamlessness, midrange, etc. that came with the 3.7 vs the 3.6. On the other hand, if you can find a used 20.1 for the price of a 3.7, then I'd definietly get the 20.1 because that one is just outright better :)
    - RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - josh358 06:18:39 09/07/12 (4)
      The primary issue here isn't the sound quality of the speaker. See fin1bxn@msn.com's post: the dual magnet drivers are difficult to repair, in fact, Magnepan pretty much builds new ones from scratch. So fixing delamination will be an expensive repair. At the very least, the cost of that should be taken into account in determining the purchase price, as well as the time (things are behind in the repair department now owing to the illness of a key employee).
      - RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - nooshinjohn 08:58:30 09/08/12 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: 3.7's vs MG20 posted by josh358 on September 07, 2012 at 06:18:39
        
        Not true that repairs to the MG20 has to be an expensive proposition... I fixed mine myself for less than a hundred bucks. Yes, it is a time consuming proposition, but it can be done.
        
        RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - josh358 06:39:42 09/09/12 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: 3.7's vs MG20 posted by nooshinjohn on September 08, 2012 at 08:58:30
        
        That's good to know. I know that someone successfully repaired a 1-D tweeter, which also uses the dual magnet assembly.
        
        RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - nooshinjohn 08:23:16 09/09/12 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: 3.7's vs MG20 posted by josh358 on September 09, 2012 at 06:39:42
        
        "That's good to know. I know that someone successfully repaired a 1-D tweeter, which also uses the dual magnet assembly."
        
        I used mylar side of the driver as a jig for re-aligning the two halves by replacing the rivets with bolts of exactly the same diameter. This allowed me to separate the plates while not allowing them to contact one another. When putting them back together, I bolted things down tight and then replaced each bolt with a new rivet. For dis-assembly and re-assembly it took nearly a full day, and repairs to the delaminated wirs took almost a week. No wonder that Magnepan would option for replacement ove repair as it is an extensive and time consuming job, but it is actually quite easy to do. If you can handle delam repairs on other Maggies, repairs to these is not above your skill set.
        
        RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - josh358 08:32:40 09/09/12 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: 3.7's vs MG20 posted by nooshinjohn on September 09, 2012 at 08:23:16
        
        Since the Asylum doesn't have sticky threads, maybe you could ask Mart to post this on the MUG group pages? Someone does ask about repair of the dual magnet drivers occasionally, and this info could prove invaluable.
    - RE: 3.7's vs MG20 - Roger Gustavsson 23:33:57 09/06/12 (0)
      Do Domaster wrote: "If I'm not wrong, a MG20 is basically a 3.6 with a bigger bass panel."
      That is not true. The bass driver is push-pull with magnets on both sides. Mid is separate from the bass and has foil conductors. tweeters is similar to 3.6/3.7.
      A picture of an undressed MG20, http://forumbilder.se/images/bd201284039AM7343.jpg
      http://forumbilder.se/images/bd201284039AM7343.jpg (Open in New Window)
      Edits: 09/06/12 09/07/12

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:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.