[Bear]

large sweet spot, pinpoint imaging.  What are your favs?  Gedlee Abbey owners have quieted down a bit, they used to claim all these and more.  Magnepans are great but alas, missing dynamics.   If your in the mood share your knowledge and opinion.  Thanks

[jonbee]

Daedalus Audio. Any of the latest versions. They do indeed meet your requirements, IMO.

[Letitroll98]

Magnepans, IMHO, are not "missing" dynamics, rather the dynamics are presented in a more musically fashion the some cone speakers.  I think some of the more popular lines, not all to be sure, exaggerate dynamics giving a false, hyped up sense of impact compared to live, unamplified events.  They sound more like the PA systems at rock concerts (which I love BTW) than how you hear live music not augmented by PA systems.  It's a matter of taste to be sure, and I do like aspects of both presentations at different times with different music, but since you asked the question, no, I don't think Maggies lack dynamics in an absolute sense.   

[rbbert]

Still overall you're asking about everybody's dream speaker, which doesn't exist or it would be the one everybody owns.

[geowak]

Magnepans, IMHO, are not "missing" dynamics, rather the dynamics are presented in a more musically fashion the some cone speakers.  I think some of the more popular lines, not all to be sure, exaggerate dynamics giving a false, hyped up sense of impact compared to live, unamplified events.  They sound more like the PA systems at rock concerts (which I love BTW) than how you hear live music not augmented by PA systems.  It's a matter of taste to be sure, and I do like aspects of both presentations at different times with different music, but since you asked the question, no, I don't think Maggies lack dynamics in an absolute sense.

I agree with this, somewhat. I have cone speakers and Magnepans too. I think that the Maggies shine more so with Jazz and vocals,
some classical music and instrumental music. But like what Letitroll mentioned, much of Rock music or pop music is played through amps with speakers. That sound travels and a person hears it much differently than say a sax at a jazz quartet concert.
So I would have to say, different speakers play well with different music. Why would we expect anything else?
And I would add this, none of the speakers I have heard sound like a live event. Just the psychological factor of being in that setting of a live event changes your perception of the sound....in a very significant way. Dream speakers are just that... in one's own dreams. It has little or nothing to do with live sound. When one thinks of a live concert, it is a different movie in each individual persons mind. Ideally, each person would have different speakers for each kind of music we like...

[JLM]

Decades ago Gary Wright (Dreamweaver fame) played at my college (in a 5,000 seat gym).  In preparation I played his vinyl release (CD's were still in the lab in 1978) just before in our small concrete block wall dorm room with rather nice gear (B&O 4000 tangential tracking turntable, McIntosh 6100 integrated amp, and Fried Model B (small 2-way) speakers.  Yet the sound quality at the concert was a major disappointment (even though the Mac was a sonic dog, the B&O had the dry Scandinavian sound, and the Frieds lacked deep/boomy bass). 

Obviously for amplified music studio conditions can be much better than concert conditions in many ways, but it's sad that we can get better results from recordings at home and frankly is one of the reasons I've largely moved away from rock.  Now if you want to discuss un-amplified music and how live compares to recorded sound, that's a whole another matter.

High efficiency, constant directivity speaker designs (with the right drivers/crossovers) should be close to the 'holy grail' of speakers (IMO) if you've got the room and budget.  Of course that's just the start.  You've also got to add subwoofers and synergistic amps to have the whole package.

[Freo-1]

Well, I have a slightly different take on this.  I owned 1.7's for a short while.  Overall, I did not care for the presentation the speakers provided.  The treble was very open, but the lower midrange and bass registers were too distorted for my liking.  When the spouse threw the flag on the esthetics,  I didn't need much more convincing to sell them. I thought that they would sound similar to my  old Acoustasts, but ESL and planar speakers do have different sonic signatures. 

The current speakers I own (ATC SCM-19 with SVS SB13 Ultra sub) present a significantly improved (IMHO) set of dynamic contrasts compared to the 1.7's.  They go louder, cleaner, and have very low distortion/breakup compared to most speakers.  So, I think the OP has a point about dynamics.  I did not fully realize how much additional dynamics could be in a recording until I got these in the system. 
 
They are also very revealing of the source material.     If the recording was subjected to limiting/compression, it brings that out.  I would think a lot of audiophiles would be very surprised to listen to their favorite popular recordings through these speakers, it's a real eye and ear opener. 
 
Now, listen to a well recorded piece of music (regardless of the music category), and you will hear just how good it (the recording) really sounds.  The Cream reunion (2005) on Blu-ray sounds VERY close to being live with these.  A number of SACD symphonic works also can get pretty close to a live experience.  Where these really shine is the ability to play the dynamic contrasts cleanly and accurately. 

[JLM]

Well, I have a slightly different take on this.  I owned 1.7's for a short while.  Overall, I did not care for the presentation the speakers provided.  The treble was very open, but the lower midrange and bass registers were too distorted for my liking.  When the spouse threw the flag on the esthetics,  I didn't need much more convincing to sell them. I thought that they would sound similar to my  old Acoustasts, but ESL and planar speakers do have different sonic signatures. 

The current speakers I own (ATC SCM-19 with SVS SB13 Ultra sub) present a significantly improved (IMHO) set of dynamic contrasts compared to the 1.7's.  They go louder, cleaner, and have very low distortion/breakup compared to most speakers.  So, I think the OP has a point about dynamics.  I did not fully realize how much additional dynamics could be in a recording until I got these in the system. 
 
They are also very revealing of the source material.     If the recording was subjected to limiting/compression, it brings that out.  I would think a lot of audiophiles would be very surprised to listen to their favorite popular recordings through these speakers, it's a real eye and ear opener. 
 
Now, listen to a well recorded piece of music (regardless of the music category), and you will hear just how good it (the recording) really sounds.  The Cream reunion (2005) on Blu-ray sounds VERY close to being live with these.  A number of SACD symphonic works also can get pretty close to a live experience.  Where these really shine is the ability to play the dynamic contrasts cleanly and accurately.

Good points.  As compulsive as audiophiles are (almost by definition) it's still easy (especially with the loss of B&M outlets) to get complacent and therefore 'blissfully ignorant' of what many sonic attributes they're missing (or maybe given up from years ago as their circumstances or preferences have changed).  I won't list what comes to mind in order to avoid the flames and diversions but hang around different crowds and it's quite obvious.  OTOH variety adds to the spice of life, so to each their own.

[harri009]

I would agree that anything below the 3. Series lacks dynamics.  I owned a pair of 1.6's for a long time and the 3.6's were MUCH better and now the 3.7's are even more so.  I also own the SVS ultra 13 which is housed in my movie room.  Now while I do not feel the 3.7's lack in dynamics they obviously do not go down to 20hz, so I tried the SVS with them.  For movies the sub is great but I tried moving it in with the 3.7's one day and it was the slowest boomiest thing I had heard in a while. After many attempts at tweaking there was no lowering the volume until it sounded right or placement or.... It was just that the Maggie's were so much faster that a sub was distracting.  I have not tried a sub with them again because most music I listen to doesn't have bass below 35hz anyways and the Maggie's handle that fine.  I read a lot about this though when I owned 3.6's and thought I would try some dynamic drivers out. So I sold the 3.6's and bought Dynaudio contours which were far to dark after having the ribbon. Then came the new Revel Performa F208's which I have heard guys go on about their bass. Well the Maggie's have more bass than they did, frankly the 3.6's did everything better than those, but the revels did have a nice sound to them and the wood finish was amazing. If I hadn't had the 3.6's I think I would have liked them more.  After the revels I realized this was going to be hard to replace the Maggie mids, highs, and openness with a box speaker. So I purchased some Sanders Sound 10c's.  These speakers had great dynamics and were probably the most detailed speakers I have ever heard, but lacks realism and offered a hard edge to the sound.  The sanders also have a pin point sweet spot which became annoying and almost stressful trying to keep your head completely still for lack of destroying the image with the slightest movement.  In the end the 3.7's sound the most like real music to me and that ultimately is why I own them.

[Freo-1]

Is your SVS the ported or sealed unit?  I would think the ported unit would not match, but the sealed unit should work OK. (I have the sealed version).
 
It's nice to be able to have the room for the large Maggies.  They should indeed have more dynamics.   

[SteveFord]

I read this a while back and didn't comment but I think so much has to do with the associated components, too.
My 1.7s are driven with VTL 250 monoblocks and the preamp is a Sonic Frontiers SFL-2.
That combo will blow Howard Cosell's toupee off.  Lacking dynamics it isn't; if anything, it can be a bit much as it's real easy to get carried away with the volume control and you just end up a little frazzled from the whole experience.
The 3.7s are more of the same in both directions (low end, high end) but the preamp I'm using there isn't quite as energetic (for lack of a better word) which is a good thing.  I did try the Sonic Frontiers with the 3.7s and the combo was rather lively.

One final thought: my "local" Magnepan dealer uses Audio Research gear and dynamics?  Not so much, it's more of a very refined, smooth jazz sound to my ears.
I think the speakers will put out exactly what you put into them.

[harri009]

Is your SVS the ported or sealed unit?  I would think the ported unit would not match, but the sealed unit should work OK. (I have the sealed version).
 
It's nice to be able to have the room for the large Maggies.  They should indeed have more dynamics.   

It's the ported version. I purchased it for the movie room so its perfect for what its use is.

[Freo-1]

It's the ported version. I purchased it for the movie room so its perfect for what its use is.

Right. The sealed version should be "fast enough" to keep up with the Maggies.   The SVS team told me for "high end" speakers and electronics, the sealed 13" sub is the only one they recommend.

[Duke]

For better or for worse, I'm in an almost unique position as far as electrostats vs horns/waveguides goes:   I'm a dealer for SoundLab fullrange electrostats (and as of a few years ago I was their largest-selling dealer ever, don't know if that's still the case); and, I design and manufacture horn/waveguide speakers. 

So whatever position I take here, I've got a vested interest, so grains of salt all around!!

The low-level articulation and clarity of a good electrostat is pretty much in a league of its own, perhaps rivaled in some ways by very high end ribbon or plasma ubertweeters.   But the problem with such systems is, the rest of the spectrum usually fails to keep up with the standard set by the ubertweeter, and that can be distracting over time. 

Other things electrostats excel at are coherence, lack of boxy colorations, and sense of envelopment or immersion in the acoustic space.  Sweet spot width is more a function of the panel geometry; the wide-pattern SoundLabs give a wide sweet spot, while a narrow-pattern electrostat like Sanders Sound gives a small sweet spot but incredible imaging within it.   

As I studied about acoustics and psychoacoustics, I came to believe that at least some of the feel that the big SoundLabs convey is due to their radiation pattern, in this case 90 degrees in the horizontal plane, both front and back, combined with enough distance between the rear of the speaker and the wall to get a decent amount of time delay before its bounce arrived at the listening position.   Hmmm.  That can be done with a bipolar horn/waveguide system.   So I did it, and Robert Greene of The Absolute Sound shocked me with a Golden Ear Award for it.  Reach around, pat myself on the back... point being, the configuration is viable. 

Briefly, what I did was shoehorn two almost Geddes-esque systems into the same box, such that we had a 90 degree pattern (in the horizontal plane) both front and back.   

So I'm friends with this guy in Arizona who's owned various model SoundLabs continuously since the late 1980's,  He also likes OTL amps.   SoundLabs' modest efficiency + OTLs + Arizona = a lot of heat.   So for many years he's been looking for a speaker that would do what the SoundLabs do, but without the amplifier power requirement.   So I took a pair of my bipolars to his house.  We set them up, played around with the toe-in a bit, and then he played whatever he wanted over the next 24 hours or so.  Then he told me that he wanted to order a pair of my speakers. 

Very cool, I drove back to Idaho, and then a couple of days later he called me up.  He'd adjusted the toe-in of his SoundLabs to match what I'd been using with my speakers, and that put the SoundLabs back out in front.  So he cancelled the order.  BUT, I came thiiiiiis close.   

He told me that my bipolars came the closest to the SoundLabs of anything he'd heard.  They got the overall feel right, and had better dynamics, and were very close on coherence, but of course fell short of the SoundLabs in low-level detail and articulation. 

Okay my horn/waveguide bipolar ultimately lost the shoot-out, but acquitted itself well.  Like Rocky knocking down Apollo Creed in the first round, and then going the full fifteen, even though the decision ultimately went the other way.  Since then, SoundLabs have gotten more dynamic, and my poly-directional horn/waveguide speakers have gotten more articulate, and so I expect a rematch would probably end the same way.   But imo the key to my horn/waveguide speakers even having a chance was their radiation pattern mimicking the SoundLabs' radiation pattern.   Which could be another topic all by itself. 

When I set out to design that speaker (the Dream Maker), I told Roger West of SoundLab that my goal was to build the second-best speakers.  Until I can match the articulation of the SoundLabs up and down the spectrum (which ain't gonna happen), that remains my goal. 

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc. 

[BruceSB]

I have often wondered about horn loaded electrostats.
Saw a picture of a horn loaded Audiostatic once.
I think the Beveridge electrostats were horn loaded but never seen anything else other than these.
I suspect that it could be due to the difficulty of trying to get biggish sized horn loading from a smaller inefficient electrostatic panel.
What do you think?

[Duke]

I have often wondered about horn loaded electrostats.
Saw a picture of a horn loaded Audiostatic once.
I think the Beveridge electrostats were horn loaded but never seen anything else other than these.
I suspect that it could be due to the difficulty of trying to get biggish sized horn loading from a smaller inefficient electrostatic panel.
What do you think?

Horn loading a large electrostat panel down into the bass region would require a very large horn.   If the panel's geometry causes it to be highly directional to begin with, horn loading wouldn't do much to improve efficiency.  If we did a compression chamber and then a horn, we'd need a large-scale phase plug to avoid cancellation of the shorter wavelengths at the throat due to path length differences from different parts of the diaphragm. 

My understanding is that Harold Beveridge did indeed use an internal lense system, probably conceptually similar to a phase plug, but the primary purpose was radiation pattern modification rather than acoustic amplification.

Early-generation SoundLabs relied in part on "wings" to either side of the panel to help stave off dipole cancellation.  These could be angled to create short-horn loading over a limited portion of the bandwidth, but I don't think anyone kept using them after improvements in the basic technology resulted in adequate bass energy without them. 

[Ric Schultz]

If you have a two way box horn/waveguide speaker you have several kinds of distortion at work:  First there is the fact the the bass is intermodulating the midrange.  Then you have the fact that the woofer/mid is fighting the air in the box.  Then you have the box/baffle colorations.  Then you have the back emf from the woofer messing up the mids and highs.

The solution to all this is to make it a three way bi-amped speaker and run the midrange open baffle.  You now have no back emf to mess up the mids and highs, no box coloration, no air in a box, and no bass intermodulating the mids.  You can mount the woof in a separate box or baffle and/or isolate the mid/high baffle using Stillpoints or Herbies thangs.

And of course you would use the worlds best parts and execution.  Certainly no binding posts (Teflon/Nylon clamps work great!!!).  All crossover parts in a vibration isolated area and all hard wired.  Worlds best wire, caps, inductors and resistors: Neotech PCOCC litz, Neotech silver/gold wires....all Dueland caps and coils and resistors and maybe the resistors bypassed by naked Vishay.  Jupiter is about to release some copper foil caps that are suppose to be better than Dueland cast copper....we shall see.  Ground Enhancers on each driver.  Diffraction control on the waveguide.....everything damped, braced and mounted securely.  Constrained layer baffles and braces.

You could use two low mass high sensitivity mids and get the mids and highs near 100db sensitivity.

One could also tri-amp such a speaker using a serious line level xover or modified Behringer.

Such a speaker done as described above would simply be out of this world.  I bet such a speaker would have stayed with the Soundlab owner....maybe forever.

The mids would be dipole and if you wanted some added tweet in the rear then another tweet could be added to the rear for more ambience.  There are many who have cut off the back of a compression driver so it is now dipole as well.  They claim lower distortion and more open sound. 

My friend has a two way bi-amped speaker (you can see it in my gallery) that uses the Geddes waveguide with the Beyma 385nd compression driver crossed at 850hz using my all out modified Behringer.  He has two modified 15 inch Eminence on an open baffle underneath.  Ncore on woofs and Yamamoto on tweet.....with ground enhancers, natch.  Pretty stunning sound.  Sounds like ribbons on top.  However, I keep mentioning the tri-amp possibilities thing but he is hesitant for now.  He keeps tweaking other things.  Right now its his phono stage.

So many possibilities, so little time.

[Duke]

If you have a two way box horn/waveguide speaker you have several kinds of distortion at work:  First there is the fact the the bass is intermodulating the midrange.

True, but with a lot of cone area and a fairly low crossover frequency, its below the threshold of audibility.  If intermodulation distortion were a big deal, the top and of a full-range electrostat would be intolerably distorted, and such is not the case. 

Then you have the fact that the woofer/mid is fighting the air in the box.

If the box is sufficiently large, the air-spring may well be more linear than the mechanical suspension system that the dipole relies on.   

Then you have the box/baffle colorations.

Freedom from internal resonances and reduced panel resonaces are indeed advantages of the open-baffle format over casual box design.

Then you have the back emf from the woofer messing up the mids and highs.

I've heard enough high-quality passive systems with un-messed-up mids and highs to question the audible significance of back EMF distortion.

The solution to all this is to make it a three way bi-amped speaker and run the midrange open baffle....

Originally I set out to build a three-way open-baffle system conceptually similar to what you describe, but switched over to the bipolar format after comparing prototypes.   I'm not disparaging your approach; indeed, it is a very intelligent one.   I do claim that my approach is also valid.

[Ric Schultz]

I would never say anything is below the threshold of audibility even if I did serious absolutely tweaky listening tests.  Who's threshold?  And on what system? Pounding bass is not going to effect the 300-1500 cycles the woofer/mid puts out?  Does not make sense to me.  An electrostatic full range speaker such as the Soundlab has a huge area that is doing all frequencies.....therefore the driver is moving very little....hence very little intermodulation.  This is the same thing as using a line source of drivers.  A line source of 16 BG Neo 3 drivers is going to have way less distortion and intermodulation than using just one of them.  One person that had a speaker with a ton of Neo 3s from around 1800 hz up said the highs were the lowest distortion he had ever heard.  A single 10 inch driver is going to seriously be moving when you are playing loud complex music....this has to modulate the midrange.  Almost all high end speaker companies use 3 way speakers in their "all out versions".  However, there is one problem when going from two way to three way....you have to add a high pass xover to the mids.  This "extra cap, or etc." will add more veiling.  If you use a driver/box/baffle combo that rolls off the bass on its own then you can just add a simple cap in front of the amp that drives the mid/highs or better yet, if you have a tube amp, would be to change the coupling caps to very low values that would limit the lows going into the mids.  Now there is really no downside....only upside.  Danny Richie does that in his Serenity speakers and I will be doing the same in my open baffle speakers.  Coincident Audio's top of the line speaker uses a $900 Accuton mid driver in a small box with a tiny hole in it so the speaker just rolls itself off at 100hz.  He only has a single coil on the mid and a single cap on the tweeter.  Has gotten rave reviews.  However, it is suppose to sound way better if bi-amped (no back emf from woofer amp).  I have not heard Soundlabs in years but long ago the best sound I ever heard from one was my friends two way speakers (cannot remember the number: A2? A4?).  It had the same tweet as the dynastat but also had an electrostatic woofer next to it.  Even though it was not biamped this totally modded speaker was out of this world.  Bi-amping it would certainly have elevated its performance.

As far as the air spring thing.....this would have to be determined from listening.  Every time I have removed a speaker from a box it sounds better (mids and highs).

As far as back EMF...the only way to know is to listen.  Bi-amp and find out.  I don't ever remember a person saying they went with biamping without it sounding better.  Bi-wiring is half way there.  Not only can you use a wire that may be more suitable for the frequencies they are driving but when you bi-wire it puts the back emf back at the amp where its low output impedance can control it better than having the electrons all smashing each other right at the speaker.....bi-amping takes this a step further as there is very little back emf generated by the mid/highs and the back emf from the woofer is only effecting the woofer.

You can do all what I describe and still have a bipolar speaker.  You could have a biamped three way speaker with two open baffles, one front and one facing rear and simply put felt and foam in between the baffles so they don't mess with each other.  That way most of the sound comes directly from the fronts of the drivers.  You still get the benefit of open baffles, no boxes, no intermodulation and no back EMF.

I am a perfectionist.  I am always exploring and experimenting.  I try to keep an open mind....as this game is incredibly complex.  But one thing is for certain....I know very little and what I do know is from direct experience.  I am sure your speakers are great.....but is there more?  I love it when one of my customers does a mod on my products and improves it....I Love it.  Help me please....I know so little!

[Duke]

I would never say anything is below the threshold of audibility even if I did serious absolutely tweaky listening tests.

Okay then, I'll change my wording:  Intermodulation distortion on a well-designed two-way horn/waveguide system is below the level of audible significance. 

I once listened to such a system at sound pressure levels so high that you literally had to shout into the ear of the person next to you to be understood, but the sound from the system was so low in distortion that there was no loss of clarity and it didn't hurt the ears.  If intermodulation distortion wasn't a problem under those conditions, then it's not a big problem in my system (which has greater cone area) at lower (i.e. sane) SPLs. 

An electrostatic full range speaker such as the Soundlab has a huge area that is doing all frequencies.....therefore the driver is moving very little....hence very little intermodulation.

The diaphragm in SoundLabs has several millimeters of clearance between diaphragm and stators, and I've seen and heard the diaphragm move far enough to tap against the stators.  That should produce as much intermodulation distortion at 10 kHz as tens of millimeters of woofer cone excursion would impose on a 1 kHz signal.   Yet the only audible indication of over-excursion was a fluttering sound (like the wings of a giant dragonfly against a windowpane) as the diaphragm tapped against the stators.  So whatever intermodulation distortion was present had negligible audible consequence. 

I've had customers who have gone from multi-amp systems to single-amp systems and considered it an upgrade, so I think the answer to that question is, it depends.