[kevin360]

Irina would have to lose a significant amount of youth to warrant the attraction of my eyes, but she appears to be very well designed.

All kidding aside, I would devour the opportunity to lend Jim Winey my ear. I imagine someone would have to physically drag me from his side if he got on a roll. Something about the interviews I've read suggest to me that it wouldn't be too difficult to get him going. I would wager a decade's pay that he thoroughly enjoyed his career. I might even go double or nothing on a further bet - although he has passed the reigns, he hasn't completely let go.

Memory is a tricky and dynamic thing. Memories are under constant revision. This is true of all forms of memory. It's an important lesson. Journalists have to record the conversations for a reason. Of course, any conversation can be manipulated in the editing process. Less critical is the absolute precision of who said what, than is the general message. I trust you to deliver the gist without distortion. I like the photos, but understand if Magnepan wanted certain details undocumented.

When I mentioned having been to quite a number of factories, it has always been as a technician - I've never taken photos, even when given tours.

[josh358]

I got the sense of a good deal of collegiality. Mark is very open minded. He considered every idea I passed on from forum participants, even the ones I thought he'd summarily reject. And I got the sense that he takes everyone's views into account when he makes a decision. He'd say things like "When I raised this point, Wendell said ---, and Jim said ----, and so we decided to go with it." And this is true of everyone in the company, not just an inner circle. He said that when they were considering adding the supertweeter to the 1.7, he'd go with it only if everyone who worked on the factory floor liked it better than the version without. And they listen to customers and critics as well.

Another thing I noticed was the great respect everyone there has for long-time employees, with their knowledge and lore. There's so much skill in an operation like this. When a valued employee retires or falls ill, it can leave a hole that's difficult to fill.

[medium jim]

Josh:

I'm feeling a sense of slight guilt as I trolled the asylum and saw many of your posts regarding your magnepan visit.  I loved your comment about the website that purports QC horrors that simply are not true.

Of little or no surprise is the down to earth folks that run Magnepan, Jim & Mark Winey and Wendell Diller.  It makes me feel good about myself insomuch that I own speakers made in the USA from a company that cares and puts forth true high-end from their entry level to their flagship model at prices that working class stiffs, like me, can afford.

My 2.5's are the center piece of my system even though they cost the least!

Jim

[rw@cn]

I got the sense of a good deal of collegiality. Mark is very open minded. He considered every idea I passed on from forum participants, even the ones I thought he'd summarily reject. And I got the sense that he takes everyone's views into account when he makes a decision. He'd say things like "When I raised this point, Wendell said ---, and Jim said ----, and so we decided to go with it." And this is true of everyone in the company, not just an inner circle. He said that when they were considering adding the supertweeter to the 1.7, he'd go with it only if everyone who worked on the factory floor liked it better than the version without. And they listen to customers and critics as well.

Another thing I noticed was the great respect everyone there has for long-time employees, with their knowledge and lore. There's so much skill in an operation like this. When a valued employee retires or falls ill, it can leave a hole that's difficult to fill.

I owned Maggies in the late 70s and early 80s and the then dealer in Syracuse, NY was very enthusiastic about Mr. Winey and his passion for the product. I then joined the Logan camp for 30 years and stayed with them for many of the same reasons Josh mentioned about Magnepan. Unfortunately, Logan lost the founder and has seemed to have also lost that passion as a company. That and the direction of its products convinced me to look at Magnepan again and I am glad to return.

[josh358]

I owned Maggies in the late 70s and early 80s and the then dealer in Syracuse, NY was very enthusiastic about Mr. Winey and his passion for the product. I then joined the Logan camp for 30 years and stayed with them for many of the same reasons Josh mentioned about Magnepan. Unfortunately, Logan lost the founder and has seemed to have also lost that passion as a company. That and the direction of its products convinced me to look at Magnepan again and I am glad to return.

It's sad when that happens, isn't it? One of the things I learned on my visit was that Jim's spirit is shared by everyone in the company. But too often, after the founder leaves or sells, management imposes a new culture on the people who work at a company, and then there's nothing they can do but adapt or leave. But Magnepan is a family business, and after spending time with both Jim and Mark, I had a reassuring sense that as long as there's a Winey at the helm, it will remain passionate and true to its founding vision.

[josh358]

Josh:

I'm feeling a sense of slight guilt as I trolled the asylum and saw many of your posts regarding your magnepan visit.  I loved your comment about the website that purports QC horrors that simply are not true.

Of little or no surprise is the down to earth folks that run Magnepan, Jim & Mark Winey and Wendell Diller.  It makes me feel good about myself insomuch that I own speakers made in the USA from a company that cares and puts forth true high-end from their entry level to their flagship model at prices that working class stiffs, like me, can afford.

My 2.5's are the center piece of my system even though they cost the least!

Jim

Nothing wrong with trolling the Asylum, I'm on both groups and people on both groups asked questions so there's going to be stuff posted all over the place.

I have to confess that there was one note of melancholy to my trip, in that Magnepan is a reminder of a "made in America" age when we worked together to make the products that we use, rather than buying them from third-world companies that have to put nets around the roof to keep workers from hurling themselves to their deaths. In a way, it's like stepping into a time warp, and remembering how good things were.

[SteveFord]

No nets here in the good old US of A!
We have office building windows that don't open so we can't hurl ourselves to our deaths.  Even with a running start we just bounce off.

I never put much stock into the talk about quality control issues at Magnepan as it just seemed like hot air to me.
They've really been going great guns so what did you see that was of interest? 

[josh358]

I think tri center was the most interesting, and it has the most bizarre effect -- when you listen to it, stereo stops working until the next day! When Wendell warned me about that, I didn't believe it, I was thinking "Eh, I'll just listen through whatever it is." And then I heard it and started switching back and forth between two channel and tri center with the remote, and sure enough, the two channel stereo shriveled up into a little misshapen thing. It sounded almost like mono. I could still hear all the tonal qualities of the 3.7's (superb, BTW, I see what the fuss is about), but the image reminded me of the Star Trek episode where the witch and warlock turn out to be little squealing things from Alpha Centauri. Wendell says the stereo illusion starts working again the next day, and I guess he's right, because I was just listening to something on my computer speakers and they sound OK.

And I loved the Mini Maggies. All that advertising guff about them being like having a 3.7 on your desk? It's completely true. Mark stuck a CD in his player, pressed play, and my jaw dropped. It's still dropped, several days later.

[Robin Hood]

I think tri center was the most interesting, and it has the most bizarre effect -- when you listen to it, stereo stops working until the next day! When Wendell warned me about that, I didn't believe it, I was thinking "Eh, I'll just listen through whatever it is." And then I heard it and started switching back and forth between two channel and tri center with the remote, and sure enough, the two channel stereo shriveled up into a little misshapen thing. It sounded almost like mono. I could still hear all the tonal qualities of the 3.7's (superb, BTW, I see what the fuss is about), but the image reminded me of the Star Trek episode where the witch and warlock turn out to be little squealing things from Alpha Centauri. Wendell says the stereo illusion starts working again the next day, and I guess he's right, because I was just listening to something on my computer speakers and they sound OK.

And I loved the Mini Maggies. All that advertising guff about them being like having a 3.7 on your desk? It's completely true. Mark stuck a CD in his player, pressed play, and my jaw dropped. It's still dropped, several days later.

Why stop at the tri center, why not go all the way to multi channel audio? Magnepan claims that the tri center sounds significantly better than stereo. Those who have heard the tri center system concur. I cannot believe that Magnepan would say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is not better than stereo. I suspect that they might say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is better than tri center and stereo systems.

Nobody disputes that multi channel audio is significantly better for home theater than stereo or mono entertainment systems. Nobody disputes that multiple speakers are significantly better for car audio than stereo or mono speaker systems.

So the last bastion for stereo superiority seems to be the audiophile market. The reasons why this is so include the expense of quality multi channel audio (3 times the cost of stereo) and the space and room arrangement issues of multi channel audio.

My belief is that multi channel audio with multiple Maggies will almost always sound superior to stereo Maggies so long as the electronics for each Maggie speaker is of equal quality. Unfortunately when most audiophiles hear multi channel audio at audio shows or dealer showrooms, it is with electronics such as A/V receivers, HDMI or Class B and lower electronics that they would never consider using or being completely satisfied with for stereo.

Of course the other obstacle or issue for many audiophiles is the vast majority of music and sources are stereo and mono, not multi channel so multi channel audio is not worth the expense or effort. That may be true but IMO if you want the best you have to look at multi channel.

[medium jim]

Why stop at the tri center, why not go all the way to multi channel audio? Magnepan claims that the tri center sounds significantly better than stereo. Those who have heard the tri center system concur. I cannot believe that Magnepan would say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is not better than stereo. I suspect that they might say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is better than tri center and stereo systems.

Nobody disputes that multi channel audio is significantly better for home theater than stereo or mono entertainment systems. Nobody disputes that multiple speakers are significantly better for car audio than stereo or mono speaker systems.

So the last bastion for stereo superiority seems to be the audiophile market. The reasons why this is so include the expense of quality multi channel audio (3 times the cost of stereo) and the space and room arrangement issues of multi channel audio.

My belief is that multi channel audio with multiple Maggies will almost always sound superior to stereo Maggies so long as the electronics for each Maggie speaker is of equal quality. Unfortunately when most audiophiles hear multi channel audio at audio shows or dealer showrooms, it is with electronics such as A/V receivers, HDMI or Class B and lower electronics that they would never consider using or being completely satisfied with for stereo.

Of course the other obstacle or issue for many audiophiles is the vast majority of music and sources are stereo and mono, not multi channel so multi channel audio is not worth the expense or effort. That may be true but IMO if you want the best you have to look at multi channel.

I have to disagree with most of what you posted.  The idea of an audiophile home system is to as closely as possible, replicate live music.  Quite frankly, I cannot recall a time when I was seated in the middle of the stage, nor would want to. Take that back, I saw Pink Floyd and they had a 64 speaker surround sound system, but it didn't catch on.
 
More to the point, one can acheive a magnificant three dimensional soundstage with two planars, I know as I have.  There is no hole in the center, in fact the center is very balanced and full.

Car systems are unique and do not render a valid comparison for too many reasons to discuss. 

Surround sound is fine for movies and such, but not for home stereo IMHO.

There is a place for multi-channel with planars for home entertainment and Magnepan is a player in that market and rightfully so. 

I do agree that most Home Entertainment Stores don't have high-end Multi-Channel setups and I suspect it is because they know that only a rather small percentage of their customer base would fancy spending big bucks for such a system.  Tri-channel is viable for most conventional box speakers that do not produce the soundstage of planars.  One thing for sure, Tri-channel Magnepans would make it a hell of lot easier in the speaker placement to get that holographic soundstage that can be at times elusive with two speakers.

Jim

[josh358]

Why stop at the tri center, why not go all the way to multi channel audio? Magnepan claims that the tri center sounds significantly better than stereo. Those who have heard the tri center system concur. I cannot believe that Magnepan would say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is not better than stereo. I suspect that they might say that multi channel audio with front, center and rear speakers is better than tri center and stereo systems.

Nobody disputes that multi channel audio is significantly better for home theater than stereo or mono entertainment systems. Nobody disputes that multiple speakers are significantly better for car audio than stereo or mono speaker systems.

So the last bastion for stereo superiority seems to be the audiophile market. The reasons why this is so include the expense of quality multi channel audio (3 times the cost of stereo) and the space and room arrangement issues of multi channel audio.

My belief is that multi channel audio with multiple Maggies will almost always sound superior to stereo Maggies so long as the electronics for each Maggie speaker is of equal quality. Unfortunately when most audiophiles hear multi channel audio at audio shows or dealer showrooms, it is with electronics such as A/V receivers, HDMI or Class B and lower electronics that they would never consider using or being completely satisfied with for stereo.

Of course the other obstacle or issue for many audiophiles is the vast majority of music and sources are stereo and mono, not multi channel so multi channel audio is not worth the expense or effort. That may be true but IMO if you want the best you have to look at multi channel.

Jim Winey is a big proponent of multi channel, in fact, when I was there he was waxing rhapsodic over the Audyssey. And they've demonstrated surround setups at shows, and have info on their web page on how to use the on-wall speakers in a surround setup. In practice, though, surround seems to appeal mostly to those who use their Maggies for home theater or dual-function setups. Most audiophiles tend to stick with two channel for their audio-only setups.

Anyway, based on what I heard and what others have reported, I'd say that tri center is a cut above the usual three-channel setup. Frankly, if it's just a matter of a conventional three-channel setup for audio, I'd say don't bother, unless you're doing theater-style seating and have to center dialog for people sitting off to the sides. But what tri center does is improve the integration of the center so that it becomes a real asset to music reproduction. The effect of having a real center rather than a phantom one can't be underestimated. We're used to two channel stereo and it can be spectacular, but there's something ghostly about even the best stereo image. Tri center makes the image palpable, as well as improving depth, width, and tonal balance (there are unavoidable midrange response aberrations in stereo because of interference between the two speakers at the ears, there's a peak and dip of several dB in the midrange that you don't see in most measurements because they measure one speaker at a time).

I was prepared for something subtle, but the difference isn't subtle at all, it's in your face. As, for me, is the advantage of surround with orchestral music.

[josh358]

I have to disagree with most of what you posted.  The idea of an audiophile home system is to as closely as possible, replicate live music.  Quite frankly, I cannot recall a time when I was seated in the middle of the stage, nor would want to. Take that back, I saw Pink Floyd and they had a 64 speaker surround sound system, but it didn't catch on.
 
More to the point, one can acheive a magnificant three dimensional soundstage with two planars, I know as I have.  There is no hole in the center, in fact the center is very balanced and full.

Car systems are unique and do not render a valid comparison for too many reasons to discuss. 

Surround sound is fine for movies and such, but not for home stereo IMHO.

There is a place for multi-channel with planars for home entertainment and Magnepan is a player in that market and rightfully so. 

I do agree that most Home Entertainment Stores don't have high-end Multi-Channel setups and I suspect it is because they know that only a rather small percentage of their customer base would fancy spending big bucks for such a system.  Tri-channel is viable for most conventional box speakers that do not produce the soundstage of planars.  One thing for sure, Tri-channel Magnepans would make it a hell of lot easier in the speaker placement to get that holographic soundstage that can be at times elusive with two speakers.

Jim

You'd be surprised, you can't do what tri center does with conventional stereo. Frankly, it makes two channel stereo sound sick, even those huge, palpable "magic carpet" images that we all love. Which is kind of disturbing, actually.

One of the things I've noticed in discussing this is that people tend to assume that tri center sounds like conventional three-channel stereo. But it doesn't. In my experience, conventional three-channel stereo is useless for music, or even harmful -- a pair of dipoles is better. But tri center was different, sort of a combination of the virtues of line source dipoles with the advantages of three-channel. Maybe a "best of both worlds" phenomenon? It had more depth and width, yes, but for me the main improvement was that the sound was more palpable, it didn't have the ghostliness that even the best two channel stereo image does.

Agree BTW that surround is pretty useless for studio pop, but I find it necessary for recordings made in a large hall. And I think that's why it hasn't really taken off, because most people listen to studio pop and as you say, nobody wants to be surrounded by the musicians. But a recording of a symphony or a pipe organ is never going to sound even remotely right to me in stereo because most of the sound energy in a concert hall comes from reverberation. Listening to a two channel recording of a symphony is like listening through a window, it sounds very unnatural, like you're only hearing the front part of the sound.

Another advantage of surround is that as I think you said it can bring a sense of depth and ambiance even to cheap systems. But that isn't something we audiophiles worry about, though it's a boon for the people who buy $198 92-speaker home theater systems at Best Buy.

[Robin Hood]

As everyone here knows YMMV, but anyone who owns multi channel SACDs, DVD-As or Blu-ray music owes it to themselves to hear just how superior multi channel audio is. The DVD-As from AIX Records typically offer both audience and stage presentations, so one does not have to be surrounded by musicians. The vast majority of multi channel SACDs is classical music recorded in large halls. The Blu-ray music I own are live performances again in large halls. Ambiance and reverberation are two key characteristics of real music.

These SACDs, DVD-As and Blu-ray music are usually multi-miked, multi-channel recordings. Why would any audiophile assume that the mixing engineer downselect  to two channel stereo is sonically superior to multi-channel. I don’t think many recording engineers would believe that stereo is superior to multi channel.

So if you have the superior music source/format of multi channel but you prefer stereo, then I think either your equipment or setup is at fault. You cannot fault the source.

Of course if your source is stereo I think you should be listening in stereo. And since most of your music is stereo music, I believe you should always optimize your listening room for stereo so that the times you do play multi channel audio, its superior sonics will shine above stereo despite its multi channel setup handicap compared to the stereo setup.

Where Magnepan and I might disagree, is that they strongly feel that the Tri-Center concept is better even when listening to stereo sources. I  don’t know but in general I am against using any digital manipulation for analog sources, except for subwoofer frequencies. Perhaps for 16/44.1 digital I might be more receptive to experiment.

[josh358]

Where Magnepan and I might disagree, is that they strongly feel that the Tri-Center concept is better even when listening to stereo sources. I  don’t know but in general I am against using any digital manipulation for analog sources, except for subwoofer frequencies. Perhaps for 16/44.1 digital I might be more receptive to experiment.

Tri center works with two channel sources, in fact it uses the standard Dolby algorithm with some timing and level adjustments. Wendell said that the material that works best is the stuff that was recorded with simple miking, multimiked stuff doesn't benefit the same way. Don't know why that doesn't surprise me, LOL. He also said that, curiously, some more expensive processors that he tried didn't work as well as the Bryston. He isn't sure why.

My sense was that the improvement outweighed the need for a digital/analog conversion with an analog source, but I didn't get to try an analog source and listened only to a relatively few recordings, so I'd have to leave final judgment on that to those who have spent more time with it.

[medium jim]

I hope me pasting the following doesn't piss off Josh, but it has already been posted in the Bryston Circle:

Hi Wendell,

This is the first email I opened today, and the last I'm finishing -- so many have been coming in I haven't been able to keep up with them and I'm trying to get the photos converted and write a more complete account for the Asylum. Also want to make sure that Steve and the Circle aren't overlooked, even if that means a bit of extra time spent typing and redundancy.

But it was a wonderful trip, and before I do anything else, I wanted to thank you, Mark, and everyone at Magnepan for the opportunity, the warm welcome, and your time. I hope you'll pass that on. And to let you know that I do wish I'd been able to catch up with Ray! I did try repeatedly, but wasn't able to catch him.

Tri Center -- that was really a stunner. Particularly the fact that stereo seemed so sick after listening to it. Hell, I was expecting something not subtle, but from the descriptions, well, a bit more depth, a bit more width. That really makes an A/B difficult, doesn't it? Because the Tri Center sounds real, and the stereo shrivels up and dies.

So here's my thinking. The fact that conventional stereo stops working after listening to tri-center is an outcome of aural accommodation. Specifically, what does center channel do?

A phantom stereo image is a combination of accurate cues and inaccurate or contradictory ones. The accurate cues would primarily be the interaural intensity differences and interaural phase differences. Inaccurate cues are many, but include the head-related transfer function coming from only two angles, and the effects of interaural crosstalk.

Under those circumstances, the brain accommodates to make a *best effort* approximation of reality. This is a consequence of evolutionary necessity. We needed to make the best possible guess as to where a growling leopard was, despite the many reflections off trees, despite the fact that the leopard may itself have been hidden by a tree, leaving us only the reflections, and despite the fact that our system of aural location is an evolutionary kludge, one that evolved from a ground mammal's auditory apparatus. A ground mammal has for the most part only to determine the lateral location of a sound, and for that, two swiveling ears are sufficient. Primates had to deterimine the location of sounds in three dimensional space, and so we developed a complex shape to our pinnae which altered the frequency response of the ears in a manner that varies with aximuth and elevation. By comparing the frequency response of the two ears, which hear the same signal, and the lateral location indicated by the ITD's and IID's, the ear is able to make a best guess as to location. But this mechanism is far from impregnable, particularly in reverberant surroundings. There's a lot of ambiguity in it, and it's easily fooled. And so localization is largely a construct based on all available information, even visual information, even, as you said the other day, information on whether our eyes are open or closed in a dark room.

I mentioned the McGurk effect, and it's an amazing demonstration of the degree to which the auditory signal is processed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

You can think about these effects as perceptual filters that work at a cognitive level. Almost like the gels on a spotlight. And some of these filters are short term, some long term.

An example of a long-term perceptual filter would be the famous experiments in which subjects wear inverting prisms that turn everything upside down. After 24 hours, the brain has righted the image, and the subjects see everything right-side up again! And here's the kicker -- if they take the prism glasses off, and look around with their naked eyes, everything is upside down! It takes another 24 hours after they've taken the prisms off before everything turns right-side up again.

OK, so here's what I think is happening.

When we listen to stereo, we are using a set of perceptual filters that remove the worst of the contradictions in what we hear. These filters can be amazing. But -- what if we eliminate some of those contradictions? Suppose, for example, that for the stereo center phantom image, we replace a real image, provided by a third channel? Then the ear is hearing a more accurate reproduction of the original, with fewer contradictions. And hearing that, it drops the perceptual filters that are repairing the flaw. Now, pop back to stereo and what happens? Without the filters, we start hearing the flaws in stereo -- the flaws that we have been editing out. And that occurs until the perceptual filters come back. That's my guess, anyway. Wish I had time to really look into it. And I've simplified some since I have to get back to the other stuff.

Other observations as well, including some more practical ones. I could hear the *tonal* superiority of the 3.7's when I AB'd, though we aren't talking a major difference and it was trivial compared to the other improvements -- and there were tonal improvements as well, having to do with the usual reduction of two-channel problems with center image comb filtering. Of course this is obvious. Also other thoughts about tri-center vs. plain center which I'll have to pass on at a later time. I was looking at my snapshots of the listening lab, and wishing I was back there, and able to really examine this in depth. "

Joshua

[josh358]

BTW, I just reread Marc Mickelson's account of Tri Center and his impressions were much the same as mine:

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/monday_at_magnepan.htm

Haven't had a chance to write it all up yet, in the letter I was just discussing the peculiar stereo-destroying effect. It's something you have to hear to believe. Fortunately, stereo does start working again the next day. It's the weirdest thing.

[SteveFord]

I keep forgetting, did you get to listen to that all foil MMG that Wendell threw out there as a prototype that won't make it into production?

[josh358]

I keep forgetting, did you get to listen to that all foil MMG that Wendell threw out there as a prototype that won't make it into production?

Alas, no, that would have been really interesting. Wendell was going to show me some of the experiments they'd done with different stands, etc., and I would have loved to see them, but there just wasn't enough time. I was lucky to get the Tri-Center, 3.7's, and Minis in (the last because there was a pair in Mark's office and he was good enough to throw on a CD). If there was any downside to a wonderful trip, it's that I could have used another day (well, I could have used another month . . . ).