Magneplanar 1.6QR Review

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 34628 times.

niels

Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #20 on: 7 Jul 2008, 07:01 pm »
The room is 14x11x8. The speakers are on the LONG wall and are 3 feet from the front wall – angled in at about 30 degrees – tweeters on the outside.  They are 2.5 feet from the side wall and 9 feet apart center to center. I am sitting about 9 feet back.

With this set-up, is there any space between your listening chair and the back of the room? 


Hi Klao,


Yes about 1 foot and I have an RPG Diffuser behind my head.

By the way John Dunlavy - a brilliant speaker designer was the fellow who tuned me on to sittng near a surface for a predictable response in most small rooms.

james




I happen to totally disagree with this, I am with George Cardas on this one.
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring=Room+Setup
There is a formula for dipoles too.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20472
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #21 on: 7 Jul 2008, 07:49 pm »
The room is 14x11x8. The speakers are on the LONG wall and are 3 feet from the front wall – angled in at about 30 degrees – tweeters on the outside.  They are 2.5 feet from the side wall and 9 feet apart center to center. I am sitting about 9 feet back.

With this set-up, is there any space between your listening chair and the back of the room? 


Hi Klao,


Yes about 1 foot and I have an RPG Diffuser behind my head.

By the way John Dunlavy - a brilliant speaker designer was the fellow who tuned me on to sittng near a surface for a predictable response in most small rooms.

james




I happen to totally disagree with this, I am with George Cardas on this one.
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring=Room+Setup
There is a formula for dipoles too.


Here is John Dunlavys opinion of why he likes to use the long dimension of the room rather than the short dimension for speaker placement.

"Dunlavy:
One of the longest-running myths in the audiophile industry that certainly needs to be set straight is that loudspeakers should always radiate along the longest dimension of the listening room.
Simple acoustical analysis shows that this configuration yields a narrow soundstage and a lumpy bass-spectrum. This is because the sound reflected off the wall behind the listener creates a standing wave pattern that results in peaks and nulls in the low-bass response at the listening position. In addition, the entire end of the room behind the listener may actually behave as a resonant chamber with potentially deleterious consequences for reproduction of sound at the low-end of the spectrum. "

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20472
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #22 on: 7 Jul 2008, 08:19 pm »
Hi All,

Here is a newsletter I wrote many years ago reflecting John Dunlavys ideas on room setup:

Gee's, yet another room set-up for optimizing your sound room for the best possible performance.

This one suggests that you consider using the short dimension of your listening room rather than the more popular long dimension.

It must be stressed that the whole point of this and the other room set-ups I have mentioned is to try and reduce the room colorations from affecting your listening environment and distracting from the fidelity of the recording. Most people do not realize how critical this "room-speaker interface" really is in attaining quality sound. The listening room is the final component in any audio system.

One of the advantages obtained with this "long dimension" arrangement is that it allows you to place the loudspeakers fairly wide apart providing a more realistic soundstage size. (Most recordings are made with the listener at the apex of an equilateral triangle.) Also, with this technique the loudspeakers are still a long way from the side walls so the early side wall reflections are lengthened (a good thing) in time. A further advantage is the reduction of comb-filtering effects present in the room. Combfiltering is defined as two sound waves interfering, one delayed in time relative to the other. Putting the listening chair near a boundary assists in reducing the comb-filter effects at low frequencies. There are still comb-filtering effects going on but they are generally above 4 thousand cycles (which is less bothersome) rather than between 80 and 500 cycles which occur if your seated out in the room.

When you place the loudspeakers make sure the distance from the rear wall is different than the distance from the side wall. Example: if your 2 feet from the back wall be about 3 feet from the side walls, if 3 feet from the back wall then 4 feet from the side wall, etc. This helps reduce the proximity effect of the two surfaces from affecting the speaker response at low frequencies.

You can have as much as a 6dB rise at some frequencies if these distances are identical. and as much as a 9dB rise if a third sure (floor) is also within this same distance.

There is one final advantage of this type of set-up which is less obvious. As we move towards multi-channel sound and the need to accommodate 5 loudspeakers equal distance from the listening position using the long dimension concept more easily accommodates the rear channels distance requirement.

Other factors to consider are: do not place any acoustic absorption materials, on the rear wall behind your head and sit as close as possible to the rear wall (6 inches to a foot). Spread the speakers at least as far apart as you are from them, (if your 9 feet away spread the speakers at least 9 feet apart) and angle them in so they are pointing directly at you. Place acoustic absorption material in the front corners of the room and some on the center wall between the speakers if required. Some acoustic absorption in the rear corners of the room can also help.

So hey, give it a try and see if the results warrant a total flip-flop of all the furniture, pictures and rugs in your listening room.

niels

Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #23 on: 7 Jul 2008, 08:45 pm »
Yes, maybe we agree ? Not so much unlike Audio Physics aproach either.
http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=32&pagestring=Room+Setup+7
There is a rule regarding difference in speaker to back wall/side wall placement, its 1:33. So divide, og multiply the distance from back wall with this number to get the distance to side wall.

Zero

Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #24 on: 7 Jul 2008, 08:51 pm »
Wow, my entire set-up nearly matches James's last post to a "T".  The only point of notation I would like express to users is practicing a bit of caution when it comes to precise speaker placement. I've found that there is no specific go-to formula that will work in all, or even the majority of circumstances.  This is largely due to the plethora of different loudspeaker designs and how they subsequently interact with a room (the other X factor).  While using the above equilateral formula (eg: 9ft from speakers = 9ft speaker separation) is a good place to start with many conventional box loudspeakers; there are notable exceptions to the rule, even amid the world of traditional monkey-coffins. Take Totem Acoustic for example; box speakers that tend to sound their best when placed closer in proximity to one another. I've also found Maggies to react the same way, as well as Apogee's to a lesser extent.  

Anyways, that's my half a cents worth! Good discussion guys. Great review James.



niels

Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #25 on: 7 Jul 2008, 08:55 pm »
You are right, all "rules" are starting points.
The room cardas had for his Magneplanar 3,6 was rather small, and yes, the speakers were very close to each other, but then again, he played with the speakers on the short wall on the picture I saw.

James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 20472
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #26 on: 17 Jul 2008, 07:48 pm »
Magnepan 1.6 wins.

http://magazine.playbackmag.net/playback/200807partners/?folio=1
Click on speakers under 2K - then page 6

james

krikor

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 660
  • Initiative comes to those who wait.
    • AudioSnoop.com
Re: Magneplanar 1.6QR Review
« Reply #27 on: 24 Jul 2008, 02:05 pm »
James, the crossover design is from the old smga/b model. series crossover. this thing electrically appears to be a dead short, but works. I can send you the design, but the socks need to come off and mylar panels need to be turned around.

Hey Splittailz,

I'd be interested in some details on the series crossover design for the 1.6s.  I've got a pair that I've been contemplating doing xover upgrade on (in fact, I've got some Obliggato caps and Erse inductors waiting to be installed as a relatively low-cost first step trial).  But the series design has been intriguing me for some time, though working the details out has been problematic.  I'll PM you.

BTW, I've also got a pair of 10.1s that I've done a rewire/inductor upgrade on and I've got a pair of MG1s that I'm just getting ready to do a tweeter wire repair on.  Maggies are a blast to mess with.