Steve Guttenberg: Are you truth seeker or pleasure seeker?

[peanuts]

my favourite steve guttenberg quotes:

"i dont believe in measurements"
"bass is not omni directiona..."

could only find the last one:

 

[digicidal]

FWIW: Manufacturer survey. Something there to please every one.

Except those hoping for any consensus... they're out of luck entirely.

my favourite steve guttenberg quotes:
"i dont believe in measurements"
"bass is not omni directiona..."

Umm what? I'm thinking the two are related in his case.

 

[Wombat]

Except those hoping for any consensus... they're out of luck entirely.

Some do provide better back-up comments than others, though. Cherry-picker territory.

 

[MRC01]

In my earlier post I mentioned Magnepan as the only speaker that had significant change past the initial few minutes. Being a Maggie owner, I was very curious to see if that was the case. I no longer have the data; IIRC, the LF corner frequency did shift down a bit through perhaps the first ten hours of play or so but was very little after that. It was many years ago; I think the majority of the shift was in the first hour or so with very gradual change after that. As @GrimSurfer said it's a different material so cannot be compared to a conventional driver. Listening tests (DBTs) conducted through the tests did not demonstrate that anyone could actually hear the change, FWIW. At the end we ran some tests with the broken-in and a new speaker (MG-IIIa) and nobody could tell which was the "broken-in" speaker. ...

Even though that Magnepan factory advice is supported by measurements, I've always thought there was an even more important reason for it. The 3.6/R has clean bass when set up right - linear response and low distortion. Harmonic distortion in bass can make it sound "fuller" psychoacoustically, due the perceptual effect of the missing fundamental. This makes any speaker with tight clean bass response sound different enough from other speakers having higher bass distortion, and the company wants listeners to take time to get used to this. So while "break-in" of this particular speaker may be measurable, the "break-in" of listener perception and expectation is even more important.

 

[DonH56]

I love Maggies but clean deep bass is not one of their strengths... Limited excursion must be made up by panel area and there are physical limits. My old MG-IIIa's hit 10's % distortion around 50 Hz when playing loudly (do not remember exactly how loudly but probably 80~90 dB at 1 m -- was certainly not above 100 dB). I prefer to use a sub for the deep bass. Back when I got them, they had measurably lower distortion than most conventional designs at moderate to loud levels above perhaps 100 Hz, but by and large the conventional designs have caught up IME/IMO. That said, I have not measured any of the newer models, although the physics has not changed (limited linear excursion with panels so you need large area to deliver loud bass without high levels of distortion).

Maggies were always my "go-to" speaker when people would ask how loud they would play. Inevitably folk did not realize how loud they were until they tried to say something to me and realized they couldn't hear themselves over the music. Clean sound will do that for you.

 

[MRC01]

The 3.6 measure about 20 dB less bass distortion, 1% at 50 Hz. That's what more surface area will do. The mids & treble is what sold me, but their bass is quite fine, at least down to frequencies that occur in acoustic music. They're musical down to about 30 Hz but for electronic music or explosions in your movies I agree, you'll need a sub.

 

[solderdude]

Didn't read the replies so just post in reply to the OP.

Steve is an ... well.. you know.
In the video he asks one to choose a camp/side. You are either in one or the other.
Bollocks.. I can easily be in 'both' listening modes and moods but can sympathize with those firmly in one camp.

I call it analytical or relaxing instead of truth and musical.
With well made recordings the analytical system is also very relaxing.
With lesser recordings a relaxing, or as I call it 'forgiving', system sounds nicer to me.
No reason not to have both.
In fact the analytical and relaxing system are one and the same system only differing in headphones (or speakers) sometimes depending on the recording or mood I am in.

I feel there are more camps though... the buget camp, the value For Money camp, the diminishing returns camp, the technical proficient enough camp, the measuring excellence camp, the money is no object camp, the audio-jewelry camp but these are all budget driven. ultimately everyone wants a system that sounds good to them.
Be it 'truth' and or 'musical' or anything in between.. does it really matter ?

 

[Kvalsvoll]

my favourite steve guttenberg quotes:

"i dont believe in measurements"
"bass is not omni directiona..."

could only find the last one:

He is partially right, though, about the omni-bass; inside a room the sound field at low frequencies will be dominated by reflections between boundaries, and the direction of the sound wave will be observed as frequency dependent, and if the room is not very large and boundaries sufficiently rigid, there will be very little direction at very low freq, as there is no energy transfer. But you need to measure this to find it, you can not hear the direction, as the sensitivity to direction becomes very poor below around 100hz, and thus will be totally masked by higher frequency content coming from main speakers. In free-field, or very large space, the sub in the movie will be omni, as in radiation like a omni point source.

He does not mention how a near-field sub actually works different. Close to the sub the sound field will have higher intensity and much higher particle velocity, and this can give improved tactile feel. Also, the freq resp can be moore smooth very close to the sub, if the room is large enough so that the distance to boundaries are much larger than the distance to the sub. For this to work, it needs to be properly integrated and quite low crossover. It is difficult to get it right, and not something I would recommend, especially for a high performance system.

What is recommended, is to buy a measurement mic, download and install REW for free, and use some time to learn how to measure and set up the system properly. But, of course, then all the mystery and magic is gone..

 

[Blumlein 88]

I love Maggies but clean deep bass is not one of their strengths... Limited excursion must be made up by panel area and there are physical limits. My old MG-IIIa's hit 10's % distortion around 50 Hz when playing loudly (do not remember exactly how loudly but probably 80~90 dB at 1 m -- was certainly not above 100 dB). I prefer to use a sub for the deep bass. Back when I got them, they had measurably lower distortion than most conventional designs at moderate to loud levels above perhaps 100 Hz, but by and large the conventional designs have caught up IME/IMO. That said, I have not measured any of the newer models, although the physics has not changed (limited linear excursion with panels so you need large area to deliver loud bass without high levels of distortion).

Maggies were always my "go-to" speaker when people would ask how loud they would play. Inevitably folk did not realize how loud they were until they tried to say something to me and realized they couldn't hear themselves over the music. Clean sound will do that for you.

Totally off topic, but the topic isn't very deserving.

An early system of mine consisted of some Maggie MG 2i's. Driven by a Carver receiver. It really could play the heck out of those things. 4 ohms, but a near purely resistive load. Sold them to a fellow who became a friend for life. His wife I think hated me for life.

I later had the 3.3R's. Sold those to a basketball coach at Georgia Tech.

 

[DonH56]

The 3.6 measure about 20 dB less bass distortion, 1% at 50 Hz. That's what more surface area will do. The mids & treble is what sold me, but their bass is quite fine, at least down to frequencies that occur in acoustic music. They're musical down to about 30 Hz but for electronic music or explosions in your movies I agree, you'll need a sub.

That's interesting. I think the bass panel area is essentially the same for my MG-IIIa's and your 3.6's. Less distortion compared to what speaker(s) and at what level (SPL)? I saw some measurements on-line several years ago but have not looked for them (and am swamped at work -- taking a break after finishing a draft validation plan and before preparing for a training class). The article I saw showed much higher distortion than I measured, like 30-50%, but was also at higher levels IIRC. I did the measurements using swept sine waves and long before HT was a thing (early 1980's). I was (and am) primarily listening to jazz, classical, and some rock (generally progressive and "soft" rock/pop) music. I love the speakers, but IME their ability to play deep bass cleanly was questionable. At the time I think that was confirmed by other measurements but it was ~30 years ago and I do not remember. I've been standing behind those measurements and general knowledge of the physics of planer-dynamics ever since so would be very happy to find out they've improved.

Note the 20 series (and presumably 30) uses a slightly different construction with magnets on both sides of the panels. That should improve their performance but I do not recall measuring the 20's.

 

[MRC01]

... Less distortion compared to what speaker(s) and at what level (SPL)? ... At the time I think that was confirmed by other measurements but it was ~30 years ago and I do not remember. I've been standing behind those measurements and general knowledge of the physics of planer-dynamics ever since so would be very happy to find out they've improved. ...

That's how my 3.6/R measure in my listening room, using my mic and Room EQ Wizard. Total distortion measures around 1% around 50 Hz, 0.3% in the midrange, and 0.1% in the treble; call it -40, -50 and -60 dB SPL. That's at about 70 dB SPL; I measured them at the same volumes I listen.
PS: I mentioned 20 dB "less" with respect to the distortion figure you mentioned, which was in the 10s.

...Note the 20 series (and presumably 30) uses a slightly different construction with magnets on both sides of the panels. That should improve their performance but I do not recall measuring the 20's.

I didn't know that. I thought they were just bigger = more surface area = less movement for same SPL = lower distortion, and lower frequency extension. But the 20s are so big, most listening rooms aren't big enough for them to be set up properly.

 

[DonH56]

That's how my 3.6/R measure in my listening room, using my mic and Room EQ Wizard. Total distortion measures around 1% around 50 Hz, 0.3% in the midrange, and 0.1% in the treble; call it -40, -50 and -60 dB SPL. That's at about 70 dB SPL; I measured them at the same volumes I listen.
PS: I mentioned 20 dB "less" with respect to the distortion figure you mentioned, which was in the 10s.

Got ya'. I ran them significantly louder when I ran the tests, but it was so long ago I cannot remember how loud. I am thinking 90 dB as at that time it was fairly common to test at that level as "very loud" but well within what most speakers would handle. I think we tested bookshelf speakers at 80 dB. I just remember wearing earplugs...

I didn't know that. I thought they were just bigger = more surface area = less movement for same SPL = lower distortion, and lower frequency extension. But the 20s are so big, most listening rooms aren't big enough for them to be set up properly.

Yup, the 20's are "push-pull", unlike the rest of the Magnepan line. Should lower distortion by providing more linear range but I do not recall measuring them (I probably did, but have no memory of it). But you are correct they do better with bass since they also have larger panel area.

My favorite MG-20 story is from when I was shopping and had narrowed my choice down to 20's and 3a's (after comparing them to B&W 801's, Quads, and Harold Beveridge ESLs IIRC). I heard the 3a's in one room and 20's in another and the 20's blew away the 3a's. The dealer was good enough to say it was the room, and set up the 3a's in the same (larger) room as the 20's, and 99% of the difference went away. The 20's had a little more bass extension but were otherwise virtually identical in sound to the 3a's. Saved me some money; wonder how many dealers would do that these days?

 

[anmpr1]

My favorite MG-20 story is from when I was shopping and had narrowed my choice down to 20's and 3a's (after comparing them to B&W 801's, Quads, and Harold Beveridge ESLs IIRC).

[/QUOTE]
The Beveridge speaker was one of the more impractical and tweaky designs you could buy, with the possible exception of that speaker using tanks of voltage ignited helium, or whatever it was. Beveridge's were super expensive, huge form factor, requiring placement near the middle of the room opposed to each other, firing into 180 degree space, unable to play really loud, questionable bass module, temperamental tube amplification, enclosure resonances in early models. But its electrostatic panels into a clever acoustic lens certainly provided a unique (and oftentimes lovely) listening experience. At least on some types of music.

 

[audiophile]

Is simply do not know what the "truth" is, so I just seek pleasure, since I know it when I experience it.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

I'm reasonably tolerant of imperfect recordings, and rarely use tone controls. But there are some where I do, like Patricia Barber's Modern Cool that is *way* over-bloated in the bass, or Brubeck's early albums that are midrangy and tinny. Most classical is well recorded, in this genre I only EQ something like the worst 5% of them. The most common problem is exaggerated treble, like the mastering engineers are half-deaf and must turn up the treble to hear it, or they just like that crispy/crunchy sound that gives me a headache.

Actually the worst problem with modern recordings is excessive dynamic compression, which no amount of EQ can fix. Fortunately, classical is blessedly free of that madness.

I don’t find that Patricia Barber recording has bloated bass at all. I used to think that Raising Sand by Allison Krause and Robert Plant had a ridiculous amount of badly recorded bass to the point where I decided that the famous producer T-Bone Burnett was a hack. Then I tried better speakers, though I figured mine were fine, and a humbled me said “oh wow .... I get it now...”

 

[MRC01]

I've listened to that album [Patricia Barber, Modern Cool] on Audeze LCD-2F headphones which have some of the cleanest, most linear, lowest distortion bass response you can get. And I get the same impression as I get listening to it on the Magnepan 3.6/R. In both cases, very bass heavy. So my impression isn't coming from a system limitation. It must be personal preference.

Put differently: I won't argue about personal preference, but I will say that anyone who thinks that particular album is not bass heavy, must think that 95% of all recordings are way too bass light.

 

[Gringoaudio1]

What do you think of Holly Cole's album Temptation? It has plenty of lovely clear bass. It has more bass but it is definitely good clean well defined bass in my opinion. I don't find the Modern Cool album bass heavy at all. Not a really tight bass though I guess I will concede. But not objectionable to me. I've heard 'tubby' bass before and this is not it.

 

[watchnerd]

I've listened to that album [Patricia Barber, Modern Cool] on Audeze LCD-2F headphones which have some of the cleanest, most linear, lowest distortion bass response you can get. And I get the same impression as I get listening to it on the Magnepan 3.6/R. In both cases, very bass heavy. So my impression isn't coming from a system limitation. It must be personal preference.

Put differently: I won't argue about personal preference, but I will say that anyone who thinks that particular album is not bass heavy, must think that 95% of all recordings are way too bass light.

I'm a bass player.

The bass is well-recorded and prominent in the mix, but I wouldn't call it bass heavy.

Then again, I'm a bass player.

 

[Thomas savage]

I don’t find that Patricia Barber recording has bloated bass at all. I used to think that Raising Sand by Allison Krause and Robert Plant had a ridiculous amount of badly recorded bass to the point where I decided that the famous producer T-Bone Burnett was a hack. Then I tried better speakers, though I figured mine were fine, and a humbled me said “oh wow .... I get it now...”

Me too..

 

[Harmonie]

How do you judge Patricia's Barber "Distortion of Love" album ?