The panel speaker thread

[matt49]

This afternoon I spent an hour or so getting the toe-in of the two pairs of speakers just right. Boy, does it make a difference.

I've been familiar with the foibles of the Montis for some time. They need a "splayed" footprint. The correct position is with the speakers pointing to a spot a couple of meters behing the listening chair.

The Cremonas are at the other extreme. They image best when you can see a fair bit of their "outside cheeks". I have them pointing at a spot about 50 cm in front of my head.

I have no idea why this is. It just is.

 

[lindsayt]

The ESL hybrids that I've heard haven't done it in the bass for me. They've had too small a bass driver, located right next to the floor.

These speakers have still had that magical midrange, which makes compromises in the bass easier to accept.

I'm very happy with what my hybrids do. The 10" bass drivers kick out loads of tight and deep bass and never sound forced. I know this sounds counterintuitive, since the bass units have their own active amplification, but switching to the Sanders Magtech does seem to have added some extra LF depth and richness.

Having said that, I think I may be unable to resist the urge to experiment with a 15" sub (or two) at some stage. It's an itch I need to scratch.

I'd agree. The Phantoms sound quite remarkable, based on the one demo I've had.

There is some really serious engineering in them: concentric HF/mid drivers; curved and virtually seamless enclosure (to eliminate cabinet resonances); curved baffle (for better imaging); long-throw symmetrical side-firing woofers (the symmetry means the huge bass energy doesn't cause resonances in the enclosure, which remains totally still); Devialet's unique ADH amp technology (3000WPC peak power); Devialet's SAM bass control technology.

They produce more accurate deep bass than any speakers I've heard, and certainly better than the 10" active woofers in my Martin Logans.

However, as gowwiththeflow has said, there are teething problems with the control software and networking.

Thank-you for the clarification Matt (my use of bold).

 

[matt49]

It’s Maggie time.

I’ve been wanting to hear some Maggies for a long time and somehow never got round to it. Now that I’ve decided to part with my SF Cremonas (with a heavy heart), I’m looking for something to replace them in my study system. The room is about 5m x 4m. The smaller Maggies would fit the room pretty well. The Devialet 200 will be doing amp duty. So today I paid a visit to KJ West One, the London temple of hi-fi porn.

The system was a Unico CDP (don’t know which model) into a D200. The speakers were the Magneplanar MG .7 and MG 1.7. I was really looking forward to hearing these speakers. You know what’s going to happen now, don’t you …

The first thing to say is that the family resemblance between the two speakers is much stronger than any differences between the two models. So most of my comments on the .7s apply also to the MG 1.7s.

First up were the new MG .7s. They look pretty elegant. Black cloth with wooden ‘cheeks’.They’re about the same height as my ML Montis and maybe 50% wider.

The first thing to say is that these are proper panel speakers. They do the things panel speakers do and no other speakers (in my experience) can. They project a wide and high picture of the music, a picture so big that you can hear into the music in a way that you just can’t with other speakers. The separation of instruments in orchestral music is wonderful. All the desks of the orchestra are in exactly the right place. Violins to the left and across the middle: check. Cellos and double basses down to the right: check. Woodwind up a bit and centre right. Brass and timpani blaring and thumping towards the back.

They also create a remarkable 3D effect. I’d say they do this just as well as my Martin Logans.

The other key feature of panel speakers is speed. The Maggies may not be quite as ‘fast’ as ESLs, but they certainly beat most electrodynamic speakers. The effect is an exciting and persuasive articulation of attack and decay. Moving from electrodynamic to panel speakers is a bit like moving from listening to the slurred speech of a drunk person to the clipped articulation of John Gielgud in his prime.

The music I was using was mainly classical: solo piano, early female vocal (Hildegard von Bingen), Bach chamber stuff, then some big Mahler (nos 5 and 8). I finished with a bit of Yello. (Why not?)

The Hildegard came across beautifully. Very vivid and pure upper mid-range. Really stunning. Those female voices sounded so sweet and present.

But then the disappointment kicked in. The upper octaves of the female voice (and piano and violin) were too prominent. They dominated the range. The result was a slight sense of a nasal ‘twang’. Added to that, neither the .7s nor the 1.7s can do bass, or at least they can’t integrate the bass into the musical picture. Throughout the demo I felt that I was looking into a beautifully detailed and articulated picture, but looking through the narrow slot of a letterbox.

The 1.7s were better. A bit more roundness and fullness, but still not the full picture.

I’m writing this at home, listening to the same music through my Martin Logans. It’s an unfair comparison: the MG .7s retail for £2K and the MG 1.7s for £2.9K. The MLs are several times pricier. But the MLs make instrumental timbres sound real, and the Maggies make them sound a bit artificial.

It may be that the Devialet 200 isn’t really the right amp for them. A fairer comparison would be driving the Maggies with my Sanders Magtech. (Apparently Magneplanar often use the Magtech for their show demos.)

So I'm sad to say it’s no deal for me. My experience today was that the Maggies do some things brilliantly, but they fall down when it comes to a full and realistic picture of the music. I really wish it had been otherwise.

 

[DocG]

Thanks for the write-up, Matt. A pleasure to read, and I learned something too (I googled John Gielgud)!

Your thoughts are a little worrying for my plans... Or maybe not?

The first thing to say is that the family resemblance between the two speakers is much stronger than any differences between the two models. So most of my comments on the .7s apply also to the MG 1.7s.

That looks like a good thing! IME the difference between the MG12 and the 1.7 was huge; apparently that gap has narrowed (as has the price difference).

The upper octaves of the female voice (and piano and violin) were too prominent. They dominated the range. The result was a slight sense of a nasal ‘twang’. Added to that, neither the .7s nor the 1.7s can do bass, or at least they can’t integrate the bass into the musical picture. Throughout the demo I felt that I was looking into a beautifully detailed and articulated picture, but looking through the narrow slot of a letterbox.

This is the part that worries me (as you can understand -- my MMGs are already stored in a cupboard, waiting for their transformation later this year). Now those balance and integration issues might well be a cross-over thing, which I hope to avoid using an active cross-over in my project. Just help me hope my hunch is right!*clapping*

EDIT: maybe if Devialet would give them a SAM-treatment... The 1.7 is at 73 votes ATM...

I’m writing this at home, listening to the same music through my Martin Logans. It’s an unfair comparison: the MG .7s retail for £2K and the MG 1.7s for £2.9K. The MLs are several times pricier. But the MLs make instrumental timbres sound real, and the Maggies make them sound a bit artificial.

It may be that the Devialet 200 isn’t really the right amp for them. A fairer comparison would be driving the Maggies with my Sanders Magtech. (Apparently Magneplanar often use the Magtech for their show demos.)

Indeed, let's face it: your benchmark system is extremely capable. It's hard to imagine a combo that'll match it. (And you have no one to blame for that but yourself!*blum3*).

So no Maggies... Have you locked the next target yet? The Trio 15?

 

[matt49]

Thanks for the write-up, Matt. A pleasure to read, and I learned something too (I googled John Gielgud)!

Your thoughts are a little worrying for my plans... Or maybe not?

The first thing to say is that the family resemblance between the two speakers is much stronger than any differences between the two models. So most of my comments on the .7s apply also to the MG 1.7s.

That looks like a good thing! IME the difference between the MG12 and the 1.7 was huge; apparently that gap has narrowed (as has the price difference).

The upper octaves of the female voice (and piano and violin) were too prominent. They dominated the range. The result was a slight sense of a nasal ‘twang’. Added to that, neither the .7s nor the 1.7s can do bass, or at least they can’t integrate the bass into the musical picture. Throughout the demo I felt that I was looking into a beautifully detailed and articulated picture, but looking through the narrow slot of a letterbox.

This is the part that worries me (as you can understand -- my MMGs are already stored in a cupboard, waiting for their transformation later this year). Now those balance and integration issues might well be a cross-over thing, which I hope to avoid using an active cross-over in my project. Just help me hope my hunch is right!*clapping*

EDIT: maybe if Devialet would give them a SAM-treatment... The 1.7 is at 73 votes ATM...

I’m writing this at home, listening to the same music through my Martin Logans. It’s an unfair comparison: the MG .7s retail for £2K and the MG 1.7s for £2.9K. The MLs are several times pricier. But the MLs make instrumental timbres sound real, and the Maggies make them sound a bit artificial.

It may be that the Devialet 200 isn’t really the right amp for them. A fairer comparison would be driving the Maggies with my Sanders Magtech. (Apparently Magneplanar often use the Magtech for their show demos.)

Indeed, let's face it: your benchmark system is extremely capable. It's hard to imagine a combo that'll match it. (And you have no one to blame for that but yourself!*blum3*).

So no Maggies... Have you locked the next target yet? The Trio 15?

On reflection, I do wonder whether part of the issue I had with the Maggies was the size of the demo room. It's about 5.5 x 6.5m. The speakers are along the longer wall. That's quite a lot of space to fill for a medium-sized panel with no sub.

Also, they have absorbent panels behind the speakers. They looked like GIK 244s. These do absorb a fair bit of the lower mid-range, and for dipoles it must make quite a difference.

So I'm wondering if I should revisit them with a home demo.

I did get the impression that the .7s deliver 90% or more of what the 1.7s do, and as you say, that's good news.

In the meantime I've seen a pair of Vivid V1.5s at a decent price ex-demo. I really liked these when I heard them 18 months or so ago, but they seemed like not a lot of speaker for a lot of money. They're SAM ready, and the claim is they go down to 20Hz -6dB. I'm going to check them out next week.

 

[matt49]

I'm continuing to think about the pureaudioproject open baffle speakers. I think they'd be ideal for the holiday cottage, not least because they can be put together as a semi-DIY project, which will reduce the cost quite a bit and give me a fun project for the winter months.

I'd buy the drivers separately from a supplier in the UK (Blue Aran sell all the relevant models); buy the Xover from pureaudioproject; and make the baffles and stands myself (not as difficult as it sounds, since there's no cabinet, just a flat rectangular front baffle).

The model I'm interested in is the Trio10 AMT Beyma150H. It uses a Beyma horn-loaded pleated-diaphragm tweeter and two Morel 1075 10" woofers. The Beyma tweeter is more or less flat from 1kHz to 19kHz. The Morel woofers are used to cover the mid- and low frequencies, one operating from 1.6kHz down to the bottom of its range, the other with a low-pass filter at 250Hz.

I'm sure the finished product wouldn't look as elegant as these, but having built a big tree-house from scratch a couple of years ago (which is still standing) I'm going to back myself.

Any thoughts?

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm continuing to think about the pureaudioproject open baffle speakers. I think they'd be ideal for the holiday cottage, not least because they can be put together as a semi-DIY project, which will reduce the cost quite a bit and give me a fun project for the winter months.

I'd buy the drivers separately from a supplier in the UK (Blue Aran sell all the relevant models); buy the Xover from pureaudioproject; and make the baffles and stands myself (not as difficult as it sounds, since there's no cabinet, just a flat rectangular front baffle).

The model I'm interested in is the Trio10 AMT Beyma150H. It uses a Beyma horn-loaded pleated-diaphragm tweeter and two Morel 1075 10" woofers. The Beyma tweeter is more or less flat from 1kHz to 19kHz. The Morel woofers are used to cover the mid- and low frequencies, one operating from 1.6kHz down to the bottom of its range, the other with a low-pass filter at 250Hz.

I'm sure the finished product wouldn't look as elegant as these, but having built a big tree-house from scratch a couple of years ago (which is still standing) I'm going to back myself.

Any thoughts?

Woah, that's so far off piste for me, I (for once) have nothing to say on that idea.

 

[matt49]

Woah, that's so far off piste for me, I (for once) have nothing to say on that idea.

If I can throw you a curve ball connected with your new thread, my reasons for going down this route are: 1. curiosity, 2. a presumption that OB speakers should sound better than box speakers in some respects, 3. wanting to mess about with stuff.

 

[CnoEvil]

Woah, that's so far off piste for me, I (for once) have nothing to say on that idea.

If I can throw you a curve ball connected with your new thread, my reasons for going down this route are: 1. curiosity, 2. a presumption that OB speakers should sound better than box speakers in some respects, 3. wanting to mess about with stuff.

You are a truly rounded subjective objectivist....nice.

 

[expat_mike]

I'm continuing to think about the pureaudioproject open baffle speakers. I think they'd be ideal for the holiday cottage, not least because they can be put together as a semi-DIY project, which will reduce the cost quite a bit and give me a fun project for the winter months.

I'd buy the drivers separately from a supplier in the UK (Blue Aran sell all the relevant models); buy the Xover from pureaudioproject; and make the baffles and stands myself (not as difficult as it sounds, since there's no cabinet, just a flat rectangular front baffle).

The model I'm interested in is the Trio10 AMT Beyma150H. It uses a Beyma horn-loaded pleated-diaphragm tweeter and two Morel 1075 10" woofers. The Beyma tweeter is more or less flat from 1kHz to 19kHz. The Morel woofers are used to cover the mid- and low frequencies, one operating from 1.6kHz down to the bottom of its range, the other with a low-pass filter at 250Hz.

I'm sure the finished product wouldn't look as elegant as these, but having built a big tree-house from scratch a couple of years ago (which is still standing) I'm going to back myself.

Any thoughts?

After studying the picture for a while, I think that you should find it relatively straightforward to build speakers "inspired" by that design. The level of difficulty will increase, the more you move from an "inspired" design, towards a "near exact copy" design.

 

[matt49]

After studying the picture for a while, I think that you should find it relatively straightforward to build speakers "inspired" by that design. The level of difficulty will increase, the more you move from an "inspired" design, towards a "near exact copy" design.

Good point.

The baffle is dead easy, as are the wooden battens. The difficulty will be the metalwork, which seems to be custom made. Fortunately the rear frame construction won't affect the sound at all, assuming it's stable and rigid enough and can be adjusted to provide the correct rake.

You can buy the frame in a kit, but they want USD999 for a pair, which is very steep.

 

[expat_mike]

The baffle is dead easy, as are the wooden battens. The difficulty will be the metalwork, which seems to be custom made. Fortunately the rear frame construction won't affect the sound at all, assuming it's stable and rigid enough and can be adjusted to provide the correct rake.

You can buy the frame in a kit, but they want USD999 for a pair, which is very steep.

When I visualised an "inspired by" design, I was thinking in terms of all the structural parts being fabricated from wood, apart from small items like the feet, which you could probably buy "off the shelf" if necessary. I too thought that if you instead use metallic structural elements, everything will become more difficult.

Maybe one option would be to befriend a tutor at a technical college, because designing and creating a metallic frame, could be a feasible project for a youngster studying at college as part of an apprenticeship.

 

[andyjm]

I'm continuing to think about the pureaudioproject open baffle speakers. I think they'd be ideal for the holiday cottage, not least because they can be put together as a semi-DIY project, which will reduce the cost quite a bit and give me a fun project for the winter months.

I'd buy the drivers separately from a supplier in the UK (Blue Aran sell all the relevant models); buy the Xover from pureaudioproject; and make the baffles and stands myself (not as difficult as it sounds, since there's no cabinet, just a flat rectangular front baffle).

The model I'm interested in is the Trio10 AMT Beyma150H. It uses a Beyma horn-loaded pleated-diaphragm tweeter and two Morel 1075 10" woofers. The Beyma tweeter is more or less flat from 1kHz to 19kHz. The Morel woofers are used to cover the mid- and low frequencies, one operating from 1.6kHz down to the bottom of its range, the other with a low-pass filter at 250Hz.

I'm sure the finished product wouldn't look as elegant as these, but having built a big tree-house from scratch a couple of years ago (which is still standing) I'm going to back myself.

Any thoughts?

If you are going down the DIY route, and want to experiment, I would recommend trying fully active and ditch the crossover. MiniDSP sell all the bits to make a programmable crossover, and if you want, the class D amps to power the drivers as well. A number of their modules have S/PDIF inputs, so the DAC can go in the bin with the crossover.

My son had a go with one of their earlier modules, and produced some pretty good sounding desktop speakers.

 

[matt49]

When I visualised an "inspired by" design, I was thinking in terms of all the structural parts being fabricated from wood, apart from small items like the feet, which you could probably buy "off the shelf" if necessary. I too thought that if you instead use metallic structural elements, everything will become more difficult.

Maybe one option would be to befriend a tutor at a technical college, because designing and creating a metallic frame, could be a feasible project for a youngster studying at college as part of an apprenticeship.

Good thinking, Mike.

I was wondering about replacing the metal braces with MDF, but I don't think I could achieve the same structural rigidity as with metal.

If you are going down the DIY route, and want to experiment, I would recommend trying fully active and ditch the crossover. MiniDSP sell all the bits to make a programmable crossover, and if you want, the class D amps to power the drivers as well. A number of their modules have S/PDIF inputs, so the DAC can go in the bin with the crossover.

My son had a go with one of their earlier modules, and produced some pretty good sounding desktop speakers.

Yes, that would be more interesting and may well produce a better result in the end. I think the pureaudioproject people will even supply details of recommended Xover slopes/frequencies: they seem to be quite keen on people doing DIY versions of their designs.

Excellent: more fun stuff to think about!

EDIT: a smidge of googling led me to this very helpful page on using minidsp for DIY OB speakers.