maggie SMGA vs MMG

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 15652 times.

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #20 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:03 am »
.

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #21 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:07 am »
 :icon_arrow: :icon_arrow:
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:14 pm by medium jim »

PMAT

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #22 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:09 am »
Bow down....... :bowdown: we are in the presence of the Omnipotent Meeeedium Jiiim.(use the Mexican soccer announcer inflections here please). I love to learn and have a lot to learn, BUT, no one likes a public backhand. If you could filter your overwhelming smack out of the posts I would like to hear what you have to say.

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #23 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:14 am »
.

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #24 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:19 am »
Bow down....... :bowdown: we are in the presence of the Omnipotent Meeeedium Jiiim.(use the Mexican soccer announcer inflections here please). I love to learn and have a lot to learn, BUT, no one likes a public backhand. If you could filter your overwhelming smack out of the posts I would like to hear what you have to say.

Really?

Jim
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:15 pm by medium jim »

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #25 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:26 am »
.

PMAT

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #26 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:30 am »
Well the fact is I am no friend of Rclark and have never had any dialog with him, and you completely missed the point. There it is.

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #27 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:40 am »
 :duh:
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:16 pm by medium jim »

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #28 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:43 am »
Well the fact is I am no friend of Rclark

Okay

Jim
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:16 pm by medium jim »

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #29 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:48 am »
If you took anything as a barb, I apologize. It  can be difficult to get context from text, but I swear I mean you no harm.

*Scotty*

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #30 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:48 am »
Clark, which app are you using. If you haven't downloaded RTA-Lite yet you might try it.
You may or may not get a more accurate SPL measurement. If you download a pink noise file you could also do a measurement of the frequency response at the listening position.
Here is a screen shot of my systems response at the listening position.
 


This is kind of a rough estimate compared to higher resolution measurements but it will tend to enable one to identify problem areas.
 The system does sound somewhat like the what the measurement implies it should, tonally neutral with good frequency extension. 
Scotty

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #31 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:50 am »
Scotty,

I should have used that app when setting up my subs, it would have made it easier.

Thanks,
Jim

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #32 on: 4 Mar 2012, 06:54 am »


Scotty it's just some junk freeware (mine) :green:

Probably horribly inaccurate.

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #33 on: 4 Mar 2012, 07:06 am »
Rclark:

Let's both be on the same page and maybe we actually might become friends!

Jim
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:18 pm by medium jim »

*Scotty*

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #34 on: 4 Mar 2012, 07:13 am »
Jim the app does have a degree of "uncertainty" about measurements below 250Hz. Studio Six says they are attempting to compensate for a rolloff in the iPhone which helps make the mic more resistant to picking up wind noise. You have to take several measurements or snapshots in time of the response and kind of pick an average out of it, especially below 60Hz. If you see persistent peaks and nulls down there then they are probably real. A variance of + or - 5dB in any given band below 100Hz from one "snapshot" to another appears to be the norm.
 The program is easily sensitive enough to see the comb-filter effects in the mids and high when you move the mic position around.  With any given measurement I will get + or- around 2.5dB in any band above 250Hz.
 I think the reason you had good results integrating your subs with your maggies is because you went with smaller woofers and you avoided heavily energizing the rooms resonant frequencies.
You get the bass extension without the room loading up to much and blurring the bass with overhang.
 Scotty
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 04:46 pm by *Scotty* »

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #35 on: 4 Mar 2012, 07:17 am »
Jim I know that the efficiency thing is a critical issue for some, but it was low on my list of things I found interesting.

By the way, mine has all high end crossover parts, so will be a bit different than what you heard.

Regardless, yeah, let's move on!

*Scotty*

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #36 on: 4 Mar 2012, 07:39 am »
Clark RTA-Lite is also free! I forgot to mention that. If you take a measurement with RTA-Lite maybe you can get to the bottom of the power consumption mystery. The bass can't be "turned up" on the MMG. The "drivers" efficiency is determined by the physics involved in it's design,(ie, the magnetic field strength and the distance from the "voice coil" to the magnets as well as magnets spacing on the supporting perforated metal structure). The crossover values could have been changed from the factory values to suppress the midrange somewhat. This in combination with a more rigid structure of higher mass would allow the diaphragm to push against the air more efficiently without the speaker moving as far in reaction to the diaphragm motion. Newton's third law.
 A measurement at the listening position might tell us something about what's going on.
Simultaneously pushing the Unlock button on the iPhone while pushing button which turns off the iPhone will take a screen shot of what ever is currently being displayed on the iPhone's screen.
Scotty

Rclark

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #37 on: 4 Mar 2012, 07:49 am »
oh wow, that's interesting! Thanks Scotty, I'll see if there's a Windows phone version.  :)

medium jim

Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #38 on: 4 Mar 2012, 03:19 pm »
Jim I know that the efficiency thing is a critical issue for some, but it was low on my list of things I found interesting.

By the way, mine has all high end crossover parts, so will be a bit different than what you heard.

Regardless, yeah, let's move on!

The spl may not be a big thing to you, but there are others out there that it might.  Again, you make an assumption about what or what wasn't in the Gunned MMG's that I was interested in.  I don't know and didn't ask, but why would John do it differently?

Sure, let's move on....

Jim
« Last Edit: 4 Mar 2012, 05:19 pm by medium jim »

rw@cn

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 336
Re: maggie SMGA vs MMG
« Reply #39 on: 4 Mar 2012, 03:25 pm »
I have a feeling that I'm a bit younger than you and I listen to a lot of bassy, heavy music, and I hardly feel like I'm missing much without a sub  :icon_twisted:

 rap, dubstep, metal, hard rock. The mmg's kill it, trust me.

All I need is low bass, but the mmg's are so good that I'm leaving subs for later and updating their amps first.

 they aren't house party speakers, but in my room, plenty of bass.

Most of the music you mentioned doesn't really go low. They are usually produced to have a pronounced hump somewhere around (very approximate here) 80 hz.
The acoustic bass (jazz music) can go low and benefits from a external sub.

For instance, I often play Maxwell and some other more modern music and don't feel the need for a sub. When I play something by Buster Williams (jazz bassist) I really miss a sub (I have 1.7s).