Line array, ribbons, planars & electrostats vs point sou

audiojerry · « **on:** 16 Apr 2003, 02:33 pm »

Line arrays such as GR's Alpha LS, and Dave Griffin(?)'s model seem to be catching on and gaining in popularity. I am becoming interested in them for myself, but being a former Maggie 3.6 owner, I do have some reservations.

I know it's not right to group all these different types of speakers together, other than that they all represent a non point source means of delivery. I loved the Maggies for many reasons, but my biggest source of discontent was in the way images were recreated. Soundstaging was dramatic, image size was large, image specificity was fine, and front to back placement of images (soundstage depth) was good, but individual images taken separately was disappointing.

Each image, whether it was a vocalist or instrument, was one-dimensional. It was as if the image was like a piece of poster board that looks fine when seen from the front, but you can tell that there is no side or back, and it is obvious that the image is artificial. With good point source speakers, (assuming the rest of your components are good), individual images take on a 3 dimensional form, making it seem more palpable.

This is a difficult concept to describe, and probably impossible to convey to someone who has not experienced it himself. I wasn't aware of it myself until I had the Maggies for awhile and then listened to some Red Rose ribbon monitors. The Red Rose's had some faults, too, but the experience made me realize that I had to have that 3D living image that had a front, sides, and back.

I've heard electrostats, and they had the same problem. I wonder if line arrays have the ability to create a 3D image better than the Maggies.

Can anyone else relate to what I'm talking about?

Tyson · « **Reply #1 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 04:14 pm »

I know what you're talking about. I hear that exact same thing when using Solid State systems with a lot of speakers. A line source driven by tubes is the ticket. . .

Nelgan · « **Reply #2 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 05:06 pm »

Of course, a well executed coaxial design can do the 3-d thing quite nicely.....

Hantra · « **Reply #3 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 05:12 pm »

Quote

Of course, a well executed coaxial design can do the 3-d thing quite nicely.....

I agree with you there. I just bought the Piega C-3 LTD. This one has a concentric tweeter, and midrange. It is the most linear, and emotional speaker I have heard, and although I am still playing with placement, and trying to break them in, I can't stop listening to them. Until this point, I had not heard a ribbon that I could live with long term.

B

Ravi · « **Reply #4 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 05:56 pm »

AJ here is my experience...

I totally agree on the Maggie 3.6. It was in ways a great speakers, and still is, but the images are flat like you describe. This was the exact reason I had a problem with them myself. Electrostats as well, they give a flat presentation IMO.

However, I've heard the GR Alphas , and to tell you the truth, they don't fit the same category soundwise. You've got to remember that a good part of the music is coming from dynamic drivers. Danny beleives that the lower half of the frequency spectrum (from 1khz and down) should be reproduced by a driver more dynamic, and one that can move more air than a ribbon. I think this is partly the reason why the Alpha sounds very 3-dimensional. You've really got a hear it to beleive it. It can go from a whisper to a roar, and sounds so powerfull and effortless, you feel like you're in the performance. Images have a LOT of body, and roundness to them. As far as image sizes, they are a bit on the large side, but not as large as on the 3.6.

Hantra · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 06:07 pm »

Quote

the lower half of the frequency spectrum (from 1khz and down) should be reproduced by a driver more dynamic, and one that can move more air than a ribbon.

Interesting theory, but I would have to say that the implementation matters much more than the particular driver type.

For example, read this statemnt here:

Quote

the Alpha sounds very 3-dimensional. You've really got a hear it to beleive it. It can go from a whisper to a roar, and sounds so powerfull and effortless, you feel like you're in the performance. Images have a LOT of body, and roundness to them.

I can say exactly that about my speakers, and the vast majority of frequencies are handled by a ribbon. It is quite a ribbon though, and much more substantial than most of the implementations I have seen.

B

audiojerry · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 08:44 pm »

You have a nice assembly of components there, Hantra. I wish there were a way for me to listen to the Piega's. I used to own the Kora, very transparent and detailed.

Hantra · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 08:57 pm »

Jerry:

Thanks for the compliments!

You need to hear the Piegas. Seriously. . . I love the Kora, and I wish it had a remote. I may be trying a Reference Line pre soon that may, or may not be in the works. shhh. . .hehehe I can neither confirm, nor deny that.

Piega's C series really are glorious speakers! Not only do they look great, but they sound like nothing. Literally. . They are amazing, and I wish you could cruise on down and hear them. Maybe if you make a trip to kill 2 birds with one stone. you can heard Brad's Excelarray, AND my Piegas!!!!

L8r,

B

Ravi · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 10:03 pm »

Hantra,

Those C3 LTDs look awesome!

Still, you should hear the Alpha's if you can. The sense of scale with a huge line of ribbons and woofers creates an immense wall of sound. And whats better, is there is no harshness to be found anywhere. They're not for everyone, as they are very large and require a lot of space. Even your C3's use dynamic drivers for the lower part of the frequency spectrum, so not quite the same thing as a Mag 3.6, which is all planar/ribbon.

neilr11 · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Apr 2003, 11:12 pm »

Audiojerry,
Hope all is well, haven't talked with you since seeing you at Jacks.

Regarding Maggies, I have owned 5 pairs. To say that they are not 3D is crazy!! You must of either not have them in the right type of room, underpowered, or set up wrong. Maybe I am missunderstanding your terminology. Do you mean they are less dynamic? All planers will not be as dynamic as a box/driver speaker. My Maggies are very 3D, airy and throw a huge soundstage. If you are every in Elgin, you are welcome to stop by for a listen. I have a room/setup that is perfect for Maggies plus I drive them with a Coda-Continuum Stage+ amp which ahs a 1.4KVA transformer and 100K of caps. This amp has a huge peak ampres and is stable down to a fraction of an ohm. The stratos transformer is only 400VA in comparison.

drphoto · « **Reply #10 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 01:51 am »

I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I've been a Maggie guy for a long time. Most point source speakers, no matter how good, still sound like speakers to me.

I finally got to hear a 'conventional' line source at MAF. (Jim Griffin and Rick Craig's design)

I loved it. I thought it had the great Maggie attributes but was more dynamic.(especially at low volume) Yes, in that room, the imaging wasn't really good. But it sounded so natural. (Rick said they were too close to the side walls)

Maggies are a tough speaker to own. They require exacting setup and topnotch electronics behind them. My system really went to another level w/ the addition of the Odyssey Tempest pre.

I'm convinced that given my taste, I will own line arrays, or get Maggie 1.6 and upgrade the x0ver. I currently own 2c's w/ modded x0vers. It was by all accounts Magnepan's worst effort but I still love 'em, despite their many flaws. Mainly dynamics and a rolled off high end (greatly improved by the Tempest BTW).....as far as imaging they are great. Yes the image is more 'diffused' than point source....but I think that's more realistic. I would not say its '1 dimensional'....quite the opposite.

One thing I learned from MAF is there's more than 'one way to skin a cat'.

Ravi · « **Reply #11 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 07:22 am »

On a more positive note on the Maggie 3.6, the ribbon line sources tweeter is freaking amazing. It is so clean, classical music is quite a blast to listen too, because the music is larger than life in a good way. The GR Alpha's don't have as good of a high-end, but the midrange and bass is quite a bit better, atleast by my tastes.

KKM · « **Reply #12 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 03:23 pm »

I'll have to agree with neilr11 and drphoto, Maggies throw a realistic and convincing musical experience, more so then any box speakers I've heard. But the caveat is there are a lot of conditions that must be met before you get there. First and foremost, they must be broken in proberly, my experience is they need about 500 hours(for me that was about a year) of dynamic music, I used mines with action DVD's which gave it a good workout. Prior to be broken in they did sound somewhat flat. Other conditions have already been mentioned, but just as important are placement, power, good source, etc. I've placed them all over the place in different positions and heard them from being poor to "you are there", patience is key. While most people use them for music, I enjoy mines just as much with movies, there's nothing like 2,500 sq inches of sound coming at you.

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #13 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 03:51 pm »

Neil,

Glad to hear from another alum from Jack's get-together.

Aside from lots of juice, what would you say is the optimal room and setup for Maggies? I have heard them only a few times, and was generally impressed (it was the big multi-panel Tympani (sp?) model they sold in the late 80's - early '90's that really caught my ear).

audiojerry · « **Reply #14 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 04:16 pm »

Hi neilr11,
glad to see you are still hanging around...You too Bwanagreg. Danny is working on possibly sending a pair of his new Diluceo speakers as demo's, and they may make it to Jack's. Maybe we can have another get-together over there. Hey Jack and Michelle, we just invited ourselves over - how nice of you!

Regarding the Maggies, I'm not trying to be critical of them. I had the 3.6 for almost a year, which is a long time for me, and I thought they were exceptional, but once I hear something that bothers me, even if it's little, I can't get past it, and I move on to something else.

I had a hard time describing the problem before, so I'll try to elaborate a liitle. Yes, the Maggies threw a large soundstage. Yes, the Maggies imaged well. Yes, the Maggies placed images in a nicely layered front-to-back way. So, if you combine all those qualities, you have a large 3 dimensional soundstage. But each and every image seemed like a cardboard figure placed on the stage; there was no 3 dimensionality to the individual image itself.

I was just wondering if line arrays like the Alpha had this same type of effect.

nathanm · « **Reply #15 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 06:14 pm »

Quote from: audiojerry

So, if you combine all those qualities, you have a large 3 dimensional soundstage. But each and every image seemed like a cardboard figure placed on the stage; there was no 3 dimensionality to the individual image itself.

I bet I know what the problem is, you were listening to this album perhaps?

neilr11 · « **Reply #16 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 07:19 pm »

Hey Bwanagreg, good to hear from you! I like Audiojerry's idea for another listening fest. I would like to hear Danny's new speakers as well.

The biggest change for me with Maggies was changing what wall they are on and finding the right amp with the balls to drive them right. My listening room is 19x11 with a knee wall opening to the kitchen. Originally I had them on the short wall facing the kitchen. We rearanged our room when I put a dedicated HT in the basement and I moved the Maggies to the short wall with a lot of room on the sides, about 4 feet off the back wall, and no TV, stands, etc in between. I am listening almost in the nearfield about 5-6' from the speaker. The bass greatly increased from the front wall reinforcement, imaging was better as well as the clarity. The center fill is incredible w/o anything in between. This set up is much more musical and realistic over the Triangles I brought over to Jacks. The speakers have disapeared and a have a realistic soundstage both horizontaly and vertically, it is really an impressive sound.

No matter how many times I have gone to a box speaker, be it the nautilus 805s, triangles, etc., I have always gone back to a Maggie. There is no comparison as long as the Maggie is set up and powered right, which is hard to do.

azryan · « **Reply #17 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 07:43 pm »

I think one of the biggest differences is in dipole vs. monopole.

Then you have the specific drivers used in the design...

Maggie 3.6 is totally diff. that the 'stat panel and bass cones in say an upper end Martin Logan....
Which it totally diff. from the sisteen neo8's and eighteen 6" poly/paper cones in the GR Alpha....
Which is totally diff. from the bazillion small cones and dome tweeters in one of the pipe dreams.

Now that's not even comparing any of the lines to point sources.

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #18 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 08:00 pm »

Neil,

I'm not surprised you went back to planers. If I had the room with no domestic constraints I'd try them, too. I think I want the kids to be a little bigger, too

I'm up for another listening session anytime.

I'll have to let you hear the Omega TS-1's now that they are broken in (they had a long way to go when they were at Jack's) and I've found a reasonable system match. You can invite yourself over sometime if you like.

This reminds me of a guy that compared Omegas he heard at MAF to MMGs. http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/HUG/messages/46003.html

audiojerry · « **Reply #19 on:** 17 Apr 2003, 08:31 pm »

Quote

I bet I know what the problem is, you were listening to this album perhaps?

Nathan, YOU NAILED IT! A picture is worth a thousand...
I've gotta go now - I'm laughing too hard!