0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 49581 times.
Harbeth. Not knocking what the guy said, just his speakers. For how much they charge for those, they are fugly. Unrefined 70's style box, on a footstool. Usually with a high priced speaker they put some effort into making it not look like puke. Usually, but not always. I'm never one to complain about aesthetics of gear but in this case Harbeth's baffle me.
I think most H40 owners use better looking stands than the crates REG has his on:
Maybe I'm missing something, but the spacing of the midrange and tweeter acoustical centers on those Harbeth's seems about the same as the midrange/tweeter spacing on these 20.1's:
I suggest that you join REG's forum and ask him about the spacing.
To return to the original question for a moment, along with a comment or two about the OP, 'I LOVE my planars' because they work very well. All designs are trade-offs; Magnepans are certainly no different. The point is that the trade-offs Magnepan chose are quite secondary to the absence of trade-offs in areas that apparently appeal more to me (let's face it; one can only talk in circles about the things he loves). A point, by the way, is an ideal source (“tiny little tweeters” were called into question”) - it would emit sound evenly (without self-interference) in all directions. It is the ideal towards which high frequency radiators aim (at least, those with which the reduction of beaming is a design goal). It is part of what I LOVE about the 3.7s – the ribbon is pretty damn narrow and, being nearly floor to ceiling in length, the vertical beaming isn't an issue (and might actually confer a benefit). I have absolutely no complaints with regard to dynamics (a criticism found in this thread). In fact, I find the 3.7s to be capable of startling dynamic swings. It doesn't hurt that I have a large pair of subs (which, by virtue of their design, radiate more to each side than the front) to which the bottom end is directed, along with a growing forest of ASC traps.I'll be the heretic here (a familiar role) and state that I've heard a number of non-planar speaker systems with which I could live happily ever after (and I do mean happily (case in point would be Scaena (I just cannot afford them (but I'm not complaining at all) ))).
Kevin:If I had to force myself, I'm sure I could find an old pair Altec A7's that I could run with...Jim
I have loved dipole planars since I heard my first pair of Acoustats. The presentation of the recording space in height, width ,depth and transparency was a revelation. They were not the speaker of choice for slam or high spl's or many of the other things on the audiophile checklist...but what they did was so good, I knew they would not be my last. They were followed by a variety of others , Maggies, Quads, Sound Labs. All had their own attributes and I should have gotten off the audiophile merry go round a few times.. namely my Quads driven by a pair of McIntosh 40's with 6l6 tubes. People talk about being fooled by a pair of loudspeakers,, for me it was with that Quad setup ..I was in the next room when a male speaking voice came on...I turned around quickly wondering ..who was in my house ?! That was spooky.Since contracting the audiophile bug, I have been an avid speaker builder and subjected any speakers I have owned to varying degrees of prodding, modification or hybridization. It has been a lot of fun. My latest effort has produced a speaker I believe has all the things I love about dipoles and what I love about box speakers, namely deep bass and dynamics . Greg
Those look nice. And quite a bargain, too!
The resistors are provided in case you have a bright room, e.g., lots of bare surfaces, not much by way of stuffed furniture/carpeting/drapes. Wendell recommends that if you need more than a 1 ohm resistor to tame the highs, you add some high frequency absorption to the room rather than upping the resistor.
Perused REG's forum today. Having done so, I'm wondering if anyone has installed or is familiar with a 1.7 with a 1 Ohm resistor in the line?
