[MGbert]

MG---The common wisdom in hi-fi holds that upgrading a system should begin with the source, then to the amplification, and lastly to the speakers and the room, that downstream components can reproduce only that which they are fed from further upstream, that more transparent speakers will more readily reveal flaws in the gear proceeding them. Why did you start at the end of the chain?

@bdp:

Davey gave a great answer in general terms.  Here's my story:   

When I first got my MMGs as a used purchase, I was very impressed... and yet saw what other posters here and at the Planar Asylum were saying about how they could be even better.  I decided from reading that the Magnestand mod would come really close to my goal with them.  A couple of years later, a tax refund that almost completely covered the cost of "Gunning" my MMGs made me decide to do it when I did.  I figured that I would let the newly modded MMGs  be the guide in determining what the downstream "weak links" were.  But you know what?  By happenstance, it turmed out that my existing equipment wasn't half bad.  Plus, I completely agree with Jim Smith of "Get Better Sound" fame that getting room placement right makes bigger improvements than most component upgrades ever could, so I made an, ahem, study of that.  Finally, the Behringer DEQ2496 effectively makes up for many sins from all parts of the audio chain, if used correctly. 

My goal for my system is to have the best sounding, MOST AFFORDABLE system possible.  I DID recently upgrade the digital source from a Netgear media player and old Sony CD carousel to a new Oppo 103 and am now using a Parasound zDAC instead of the Behringer's built in DAC.  The Oppo is definitely an upgrade; the zDAC much more subtle.  But even including them in the system cost, the Gunned MMGs are half the total cost of the total digital platback system.  As jarcher and panxist posted, the total package seems to work!  New power amps are in my future, but I'm having too much fun for as long as my 30+ year old Apt power amps hold out.

Hope this answers your question.

MGbert

[bdp24]

Sure does! Has anyone with gunned 1.6's compared them with 1.7's, side-by-side? The cost of gunning 1.6's will buy a new pair of 1.7's! I have had the opportunity to hear a pair of 1.7's since I posted my questions. I hear no evidence of the MDF panels "reflecting" energy back onto the driver's. Has PG offered any evidence to support his claim that they do? As for the wood itself.....I assume the PG frames look better in person, 'cause in the pics of them they appear kinda.....tacky. No offence, PG owners! In an email, PG answered my question about painting the frames by saying that the paint would ruin the wood's ability to absorb the driver energy. Seriously! He also stated that Magnepan is "Greedy. And cheap". Honest!---I saved the email.

[jk@home]

John of Magnestand has very strong opinions of his product...not surprising. From what I've read, his customers are very satisfied, love the sound and new look of their speakers. In the right room decor, they probably look better than stock Maggies. Not defending here, I haven't heard Magnestands myself. I could think of many other speakers that IMHO, are easily tackier in the "looks" department. My self-moddded MMGs probably qualify....

Of course there's a lot of info out there for you to mod 1.6s yourself, even with passive or active bi-amp-ping. Haven't read of too many 1.7s modded yet, just of folks on the Audiogon forum changing out crossover components. Once someone figures out how to deal with the 2 and a half way aspect of the 1.7 design, I imagine the flood gates will open. I will say that I feel the comments PG makes on his site regarding the 1.7 are overly harsh, and if Magnepan were indeed greedy and cheap, then they, like so many others, would have shipped their production overseas.

I diyed the hardwood frame mod on my MMGs, not really for dampening, but structural improvements. Went from the stock 3/4" MDF frame thickness to a 1-1/2" poplar frame thickness (same thickness as stock MG12s). I found the Razor mod on the pole pieces more apparently helpful in the driver dampening department. BTW, PG, along with others including member Davey here, helped me with my design, I'm thankful to all.

[rollo]

   That razor mod looks very affective. Makes one wonder why Magnepan does not use same or similar construction. Maybe when measured not as affective vs cost.
    The room is the first item to be considered. Source next [ garbage in garbage out theory ] speakers next, amp to match speakers the pre or passive. Cables last.
      You can put an average system in a properly designed and treated room and obtain great results.  Put any system in an untreated room with peaks, dips bass overloading and loose the sonics you paid so dearly for.
      DSP ? for bass correction a big yes for the rest of the frequency range maybe. Depends on what DSP unit. Most do not get it right. better money spent on the room acoustics.  get the room right then consider tube and IC change. You will be able to discern changes from tubes and cables more when the room is right.  Have fun trying.


charles

[MGbert]

Sure does! Has anyone with gunned 1.6's compared them with 1.7's, side-by-side? The cost of gunning 1.6's will buy a new pair of 1.7's! I have had the opportunity to hear a pair of 1.7's since I posted my questions. I hear no evidence of the MDF panels "reflecting" energy back onto the driver's. Has PG offered any evidence to support his claim that they do? As for the wood itself.....I assume the PG frames look better in person, 'cause in the pics of them they appear kinda.....tacky. No offence, PG owners! In an email, PG answered my question about painting the frames by saying that the paint would ruin the wood's ability to absorb the driver energy. Seriously! He also stated that Magnepan is "Greedy. And cheap". Honest!---I saved the email.

Hey bdp24:

Well, I have heard Gunned 1.6's on their own and later my Gunned MMGs in comparison to Steve Ford's 1.7s at his place.  As Steve has posted here before, my Gunned MMGs sound like a smaller version of his 1.7s, with the main difference that mine, being smaller, had a harder time moving the air to fill his 50 foot long(!) listening space with the same authority as his 1.7s.  I agree... Gunned 1.6s compared to a stock 1.7 would be a fascinating comparison.

And in the FWIW department, I for one would NEVER paint PG's frames, if only for the fact that there is no paint which could improve the look of his frames nekkid.     So I cannot comment on acoustic differences in paint vs non-paint - that is one experiment I ain't doin'!

If you happen to live near or are traveling to the intersection of I-70 and I-81, PM me and perhaps we can set up an opportunity for you to audition my rig.  Consider me a proud parent...

MGbert

[bdp24]

Thanks for the invite, MG. That's downright neighborly of ya! Your info on the Maggies stock and gunned raises the very same doubts I have about the claims of PG. If the stock MDF frames are so bad for the sound of Magneplanar speakers (which is the "opinion" of PG), the difference between gunned MMG's and stock 1.7's should be greater than, and different from, the 1.7's merely sounding bigger than the MMG's. PG characterizes the MDF frames as fatally flawed. The choice of hardwoods from which the PG frames can be made appears to have no relationship to the resonant characteristics of those woods---but all are similar in one aspect.....they're not MDF. Maple is a wood used in top tier drum shells. Drum shells are also available in Mahogany and Birch, to name just two. Drummers buy their drums based on the sound characteristics of the wood used in the shells of particular drum companies. DW shells are made of Maple, a wood prized for it's resonant characteristics. PG offers frames made out of Maple. Do you really want speaker frames made out of a wood as resonant as Maple? PG claims that the stock MDF frames reflect the panel energy back onto the panels, but that his frames convert that energy into heat. Bullshit. He can't provide any proof of those claims because they're not true. The claims do, however, provide PG with a rational for charging as much as or more than the cost of the Maggies themselves for his mod. As I said to him, the cabinets of most serious loudspeaker designer/engineers (you know, professionals, not hobbyists) are made of one of two materials---Baltic Birch plywood or MDF, painted or veneered. NEVER hardwood. There are reasons for that, and the fact that Maggie frames are not sealed speaker enclosures has nothing to do with it. PG apparently doesn't know that in addition to sealed and unsealed (Open Baffle) speaker cabinets creating cavity resonances, the material the cabinets are made from itself contains panel resonances. That's a bad thing, and engineers go to great lengths to rid their speakers of those resonances. Not PG.

[SteveFord]

Peter is not here to defend himself so let's just say that the pair I heard (Bert's) sounded very good and that some of Peter's stuff should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm still wondering about a dream I had about demoing a pair of destroyed 20.1s at a defunct dealership's place that I somehow wandered into.
The alarm clock went off right before I had a chance to hear them.
What is my subconscious trying to tell me?  3.7s, your days are numbered?

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

[kevin360]

bdp24,

Given the history of things, I'm probably the least likely individual here to speak in defense of PG, but you're oversimplifying the physics involved with wood and resonance. How many drum shells have you seen that are 20mm thick? Most range from around 3mm to 6mm, with bearing edges that may double that. Even a grand piano's soundboard rarely exceeds 9mm and they typically taper to around 6mm at the perimeter. The acoustic impedance increases as a square of the thickness, so doubling the thickness has a dramatic effect on the acoustic energy radiating from wood. Also, back to the drum shell analogy, there's a lot more going on than the additive component of the wood. The shell thickness also affects how it absorbs certain frequencies issuing from the head. It's a complicated system and I'm barely scratching the surface, but I hope you see my point. A 20mm stick of wood makes for a lousy soundboard.

I shall not defend PG's abuse of science. He makes some ridiculous claims, but that does not degrade the quality of his craftsmanship, nor does it diminish the value of his product. Aesthetic preference is as personal as things can get. What you may find unappealing, another may find gorgeous, with neither being wrong. Likewise, his alteration of the crossover alignment may appeal to some and turn others off - who is to say what an individual should like? I get the sense that you think PG is overcharging for his work. I disagree. A great deal of time and effort go into the transformation, and the labor takes skill to execute as flawlessly as he does it.

BTW, I have owned more than one pair of loudspeakers with hardwood cabinets that were built by serious manufacturers, not hobbyists. Well, actually, they were a mix of materials as they had MDF baffles and rear panels. Still, actual hardwood, not a veneer, was in the mix.
 

[MGbert]

Thanks for the invite, MG. That's downright neighborly of ya! Your info on the Maggies stock and gunned raises the very same doubts I have about the claims of PG.

As Steve said - PG is not here to defend himself.  But as an owner of his product as well as a practicing engineer (structural, so the concept of structural resonances is not unknown to me) there are real differences in the way Maggie drivers behave when stapled into MDF compared to screwed into hardwood frames (mine are Elm, FWIW).  Drums, in particular, took on more immediacy and presence post-mod, without screwing up the apparent realism of non-percussion instruments.  PG would not be the first inventor who came up with a great gizmo and failed in his explanation as to why it works.  Doesn't mean it doesn't work.    

While I owned stock MMGs, I never took the socks off, so I cannot verify directly PGs claim that the mylar on the stock speakers "flap around".  I will say, though, that post mod the mylar does not look like it's moving at all.

There IS the possibility that the real genius of the mod is removing the staples securing the driver to the frame and screwing them into the frames, not changing the material from MDF to hardwood.  That would explain why choice of hardwood species doesn't matter so much.  Apparently MDF does not tolerate being screwed into over the long term, though, so what we need, in the interest of science, is for a Maggie owner to remove the staples holding the driver on the MDF frame, carefully matching through holes in both driver and MDF, and using through bolts to reassemble the driver onto the frame.  Over in Planar Asylum land, there is an inmate who calls his heavily modded Maggies "Frankenpans".  Well, this would certainly qualify for that name!  But I don't see any other way to ensure that the debate between MDF and hardwood really isn't misguided   Just my $0.02.

MGbert

[kevin360]

PG would not be the first inventor who came up with a great gizmo and failed in his explanation as to why it works.  Doesn't mean it doesn't work.    

I would classify the discovery more as a happy accident than invention. I know the history has been re-written for those who either have short memories or weren't around to witness the process, but resolving a mechanical problem was not the impetus for the wood frames. Regardless, your comment is spot on.

Apparently MDF does not tolerate being screwed into over the long term, though, so what we need, in the interest of science, is for a Maggie owner to remove the staples holding the driver on the MDF frame, carefully matching through holes in both driver and MDF, and using through bolts to reassemble the driver onto the frame.  Over in Planar Asylum land, there is an inmate who calls his heavily modded Maggies "Frankenpans".

That very inmate, prior to transitioning to hardwood frames, not only did what you are suggesting, but also added aluminium L-bars to the rear of his MGIIIs. Although doing that made an improvement, he stated that the hardwood frames made significantly more of an improvement. He visits this forum too. Perhaps, he'll chime in on the topic.

My own experience includes a change that is anything but a suspect perceived difference. Hardwood cured my MMGs of the slap - well, that is true at the levels to which I drove/drive them. I should imagine that it is still possible to induce the membrane to slam into the magnet assembly, but that no longer happens at the same volume levels - as confirmed by my RatShack meter.

[MGbert]

That very inmate, prior to transitioning to hardwood frames, not only did what you are suggesting, but also added aluminium L-bars to the rear of his MGIIIs. Although doing that made an improvement, he stated that the hardwood frames made significantly more of an improvement. He visits this forum too. Perhaps, he'll chime in on the topic.

My own experience includes a change that is anything but a suspect perceived difference. Hardwood cured my MMGs of the slap - well, that is true at the levels to which I drove/drive them. I should imagine that it is still possible to induce the membrane to slam into the magnet assembly, but that no longer happens at the same volume levels - as confirmed by my RatShack meter.

I for one would indeed welcome Dr. Frankenpan's input; and thanks for the background to his story.  But, putting all our experiences together, I'd say that there is indeed something worthwhile in switching the MDF with wood, AT LEAST FOR THE PRE-.7 MODELS.  I was very pleasantly surprised by Steve's 1.7s when I schlepped my Gunned MMGs to his place; I don't know what the folks in White Bear Lake did to improve the way the 1.7 driver and the MDF frame get along, but sonically they do.  One thing that is interesting in the comparison (Gunned MMG to 1.7): true, the smaller square area of mylar on the MMG meant that the 1.7 could energize Steve's large room more effortlessly, which we both attributed to sheer size.  However, one oft-cited reason for moving up the Maggie line - detail retrieval - seemed to be just about identical between the two.  So perhaps the wooden frames, in preventing untoward slap, do indeed allow more inner detail to come through.  PG himself said his mod doesn't really improve 1.7s enough to be cost effective (OK, wild paraphrase there) so perhaps they found a way of partially addressing the slap/flap issue independent of frame material?

Bottom line: I'd feel confident recommending 1.7s to someone with a large listening room, who perhaps does not plan on listening nearfield.  In an small room where nearfield listening is a given, the Mini-Maggies should definitely be auditioned (I haven't had the chance yet)    For someone who is in the middle, i.e. wants to listen nearfield in a larger space, I think Gunned MMGs or higher are contenders.  Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to try listening to Steve's 1.7s nearfield when I was there; guess I'll just have to go back.   

MGbert 

[Davey]

I just revisited PG's website and noticed he still has that absurdly silly effort in revisionist history ("where we stand") up.  Hilarious!
I AM actually surprised that one of our talkative younger members here hasn't contacted PG and had him take down the portion of his diatribe that completely mischaracterized our exchange regarding a possible audition opportunity.  (Oh well.)

Regarding claims....I don't think it really matters when it's all said and done.  Yes, PG would have been better off just saying the speakers sound better with this modification and leave it at that.  Subjective evaluation is, by definition, incontrovertible so he wouldn't have got himself into any trouble.  However, he just couldn't let it lay. 

But I agree with Kevin.  He's certainly not bending anybody over with the pricing and the value of the product is certainly fine.....relative to other products/services in this crazy industry.    Customers certainly have the final word.....and that's the way it should be.

Cheers,

Dave.

[jk@home]

There IS the possibility that the real genius of the mod is removing the staples securing the driver to the frame and screwing them into the frames, not changing the material from MDF to hardwood.

Or in my case, imitating Davey's original frame design, clam shelling the driver in between two frame halfs, to avoid drilling into the driver and still clamping the driver down securely.

I would classify the discovery more as a happy accident than invention. I know the history has been re-written for those who either have short memories or weren't around to witness the process, but resolving a mechanical problem was not the impetus for the wood frames.

LOL, and to think if PG was a kitchen re-modeler, instead of a master woodworker, we would all be hauling around granite frames.

[bdp24]

Great discussion, guys! Too bad PG has to get defensive and pitch a hissy fit when queried about his design, rather than answer questions, mocking the questions and insulting the asker (me). It's academic to me anyway, as I have decided to get Eminent Technologies LFT-8's instead of Magneplanar 1.7's. Both great loudspeakers, neither needing to be gunned. Actually, the ET's have aluminum frames, not MDF, so PG would have to find another excuse to mod them. He actually told me he does his mod as a (benevolent) service to the Magneplanar community. What a guy! I'm sure saying to me that Magnepan are greedy and lazy is to be blamed on him just having a bad day or something, and not a reflection of his character. He obviously doesn't work in retail, 'cause his people skills are sorely lacking.

[bdp24]

bdp24,

Given the history of things, I'm probably the least likely individual here to speak in defense of PG, but you're oversimplifying the physics involved with wood and resonance. How many drum shells have you seen that are 20mm thick? Most range from around 3mm to 6mm, with bearing edges that may double that. Even a grand piano's soundboard rarely exceeds 9mm and they typically taper to around 6mm at the perimeter. The acoustic impedance increases as a square of the thickness, so doubling the thickness has a dramatic effect on the acoustic energy radiating from wood. Also, back to the drum shell analogy, there's a lot more going on than the additive component of the wood. The shell thickness also affects how it absorbs certain frequencies issuing from the head. It's a complicated system and I'm barely scratching the surface, but I hope you see my point. A 20mm stick of wood makes for a lousy soundboard.

I shall not defend PG's abuse of science. He makes some ridiculous claims, but that does not degrade the quality of his craftsmanship, nor does it diminish the value of his product. Aesthetic preference is as personal as things can get. What you may find unappealing, another may find gorgeous, with neither being wrong. Likewise, his alteration of the crossover alignment may appeal to some and turn others off - who is to say what an individual should like? I get the sense that you think PG is overcharging for his work. I disagree. A great deal of time and effort go into the transformation, and the labor takes skill to execute as flawlessly as he does it.

BTW, I have owned more than one pair of loudspeakers with hardwood cabinets that were built by serious manufacturers, not hobbyists. Well, actually, they were a mix of materials as they had MDF baffles and rear panels. Still, actual hardwood, not a veneer, was in the mix.

You make a good point about the thickness of the wood Kevin. I have a pair of Open Baffle subwoofers (they work great with Maggies) designed by Danny Richie of GR Research. His recommendation for the H-frames of the subs (he sells the woofers and plate amps, the consumer provides the open frame cabinets built to Danny's specifications. They're pretty simple, and easy to build.) is double layers of 3/4" MDF, Baltic Birch plywood a close second. He advises specifically against hardwood because of it's resonance characteristics. Hardwood re-radiates vibrations injected into it, while MDF and BBP are self-damping. That's why they are great for speaker building, and why hardwood is terrible. Hardwood is great for drum shells, however, precisely because you WANT the shell to resonate when fed vibrations from the Mylar drum head. A drumshell's quality is determined by the character of its resonance; the quality of a speaker enclosure or frame (PG claims those are two different things. I disagree.) is partially determined by it's LACK of character---it shouldn't have any (i.e. it shouldn't resonate). That's why David Wilson and Richard Vandersteen invest so much time and money into creating non-resonant speaker enclosures. Their cabinet material? A combination of things, including MDF. But zero hardwood. Same as Jim Winey!

[Davey]

Or in my case, imitating Davey's original frame design, clam shelling the driver in between two frame halfs, to avoid drilling into the driver and still clamping the driver down securely.

LOL, and to think if PG was a kitchen re-modeler, instead of a master woodworker, we would all be hauling around granite frames.

I'm still not sure everyone is totally understanding what I did there.  The object is NOT to "clamp the driver down securely."  The object is to sandwich the driver so the frame makes contact all the way around the perimeter of both sides, but still allow the transducer to float inside the frame with seasonal changes of the wood.  You MUST fashion an appropriate spacer between the two wood frames to allow relative movement.  (The thickness of that spacer is very important.)

My setup is still working beautifully after a number of years.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Davey]

PG's theory is the frames become (essentially) an "extension" of the transducer and their vibrations are sympathetic.....so to speak.....and said sympathetic vibration is not a bad thing but a good thing.  The frames become not dissimilar to an edge-damping mechanism

The comparison to musical instrument fabrication and materials used is apples to oranges.  You're missing the point of you go off on that tangent.

I don't really have a problem with the wood framing aspect of his modification.....although it's a crude way to implement relative to the way I did it.  However, the process I used is MUCH more work. 

My main issue with his modification is the crossover implementation and claims thereof.

Cheers,

Dave.

[bdp24]

Sympathetic vibration is a VERY bad thing. It's delayed in time relative to the vibration of the driver, causing smearing, and produces harmonics of the vibration's frequencies, causing coloration.

[Davey]

I don't disagree, but whatever the mechanism, his theory/claim was the net result was an improvement.

As I said previously, subjective evaluation trumps everything and many of his customers are happy with the results.  There's no basis for discussion/argument with that. 

Cheers,

Dave.

[kevin360]

Or in my case, imitating Davey's original frame design, clam shelling the driver in between two frame halfs, to avoid drilling into the driver and still clamping the driver down securely.

LOL, and to think if PG was a kitchen re-modeler, instead of a master woodworker, we would all be hauling around granite frames.

Not to take anything away from Dave, a gentleman named Rod Hickerson sandwiched his MMG panels several years earlier, but he used MDF. Dave's design is quite elegant. He did a fantastic job of detailing it so that others could copy it. One of the assets of his design is that it doesn't require more advanced joinery skills. Although someone who shall go nameless criticized it, I think it's a perfectly effective method.

I just revisited PG's website and noticed he still has that absurdly silly effort in revisionist history ("where we stand") up.  Hilarious!
I AM actually surprised that one of our talkative younger members here hasn't contacted PG and had him take down the portion of his diatribe that completely mischaracterized our exchange regarding a possible audition opportunity.  (Oh well.)

Regarding claims....I don't think it really matters when it's all said and done.  Yes, PG would have been better off just saying the speakers sound better with this modification and leave it at that.  Subjective evaluation is, by definition, incontrovertible so he wouldn't have got himself into any trouble.  However, he just couldn't let it lay. 

That is some piece of creative writing, isn't it? Even the details regarding the cartoon have been revised. Oh well, it paints him in the best light, which I suppose is the point. Who cares about truth? Although I think it's quite tacky to name individuals (you and Josh), I'm somewhat offended that I didn't make the list. The comments about Wendell's open letter to the forum are also seriously distorted.

Indeed, there is nothing at all wrong with making claims which are left in the subjective realm. If one wishes to underpin such claims with scientific principles, they had better not be pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo. That tends to ruffle feathers.

Still, the guy does nice work. None of this can take that away from him and I, for one, never once attacked his work. I have nothing but respect for his craftsmanship and I have never advised anyone against his mods.

Great discussion, guys! Too bad PG has to get defensive and pitch a hissy fit when queried about his design, rather than answer questions, mocking the questions and insulting the asker (me). It's academic to me anyway, as I have decided to get Eminent Technologies LFT-8's instead of Magneplanar 1.7's.

It's always unfortunate when a debate is derailed by defensive posturing. The raison d'être for forums like this is the dissemination of information which often involves debate. There is nothing inherently unfriendly about debating differing opinions. The best way to wade through the waters of conflict is through calm discussion of facts and viewpoints. Such debates expose the strengths and weaknesses of each side of an argument.

LFT-8s are great speakers - congratulations! I agree that the open baffle subs should make great partners for planars. In my case, I needed a stacked solution because of floorspace constraints. This is where they used to be - in a bedroom now (with even less room). Someone who shall go nameless thought this was a very bad idea, but I think these may be the best sounding MMGs in existence.



Although I disagree with the way he presents his argument, PG does make a valid point. Of course, there are other methods of achieving the same end, but that's another discussion. I think the analogy with musical instruments and soundboards is dangerous and misleading as it focuses on one detail while ignoring others. There is a difference between sympathetic vibration and radiated energy. Wood does have a structure which gives it very good internal damping, but that brings dimensional considerations to the fore. In the case of hardwood framed Maggies, the frames are comprised of narrow, thick sticks of wood. Again, I assert that this makes them very poor soundboards.