Powell wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote



The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't
need to biamp...


What is the basis for this comment? There is no such
thing as an amp that is too big (watts per channel). If the
poster says that biamping works for him, what leads you
to believe that he is mistaken about his empirical
experience?

The 20s aren't difficult to drive. If he wants to do a
5/6 channel setup, he can use his two amps to drive
4 channels with no change in the quality of his sound.


How would you know?

Monitor Audio Gold Reference 20s
Power Handling 150 RMS/350 peak
Recommended Amplifier 100 watts - 300 watts

2 - Arcam Alpha 8/8P power amps, 50 watts @ 8 ohms.

They still aren't hard to drive. All you pointed out was the
manufacturer's recommended power levels based upon typical
expectations. 50W continuous is going to sound vastly different
from his amplifiers than 100W from a typical consumer-grade amp.

Plus, 50WPC is plenty in surround mode unless he's into serious pain.

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

(Wonders why subs are a big deal for HT - when you can just get
a bunch of 8-12 inchers in your towers and ignore most of this
nonsense)


Wonders why full-range speakers are a big deal - when you can just
get one subwoofer and ignore most of this expense.


Because placement and integration is easier. In many cases, you
get good bass without fighting the other speakers and room
acoustics as well as no conflict from the drivers themselves
in terms of tonality. You don't have to deal with the typical A/V
receiver's EQ and "crossover" nonsense, which often mangles
the sound.

The tradeoff is you need more size(though not much more, since
most towers are no larger than bookshelves and stands) and larger
amplifiers. Well, larger than a peanut butter sandwich.

The Devil wrote:

On 19 Jul 2004 17:40:40 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


You should consider listening to a pair that are not obviously damaged and/or
abused before passing judgement. I suspect any speaker will sound like crap if
it is damaged badly enough.


Bleh. You're no fun at all.

I personally found the large Magnepans to be better than the MLs,
mostly because of the woofer issue. The ML CLS full-range models,
otoh, were superb. Too bad they no longer make them.

chunky_john wrote:


3. Joseph Oberlander:
- "speaker wires are useless… sonically indistinguishable from
electrical wire"
- "..any [CD player] unit made in the last few years will do exactly
the same job…"
- "The two amplifiers you have are overkill - you don't need to
biamp..."

These suggestions leave me speechless. Do you have ears? Are you some
kind of Swansea sausage eater? I wouldn't have spent my hard earned
cash on any upgrades over the years if I hadn't heard a sonic
improvement when I auditioned each product.

I'm sure you DID hear a preceived difference. OTOH, years of actual
musical and audio work in my younger years(when I had superb hearing,
btw) made it clear that your mind can act like a very powerful
equalizer in almost any circumstance. It's like when you mix and
re-mix and mix a song over and over - you get to a point where you
swear that you are hearing different things in the music.

No joke. There is no difference other than a psychological one.

Now, this isn't to say that that's a wrong thing - afterall, people
sometimes have such strong psychological responses as to actually
hear and see things that aren't even there - just that my saying
there isn't a real physical difference doesn't mean that you aren't
truly hearing one.

But - the truth is that your money mostly made you feel better.
I like my leather chair for the same reason, mind you - but it's
not a more comfortable chair than the cloth version.

The reason I have moved
from cheap own-brand speaker cable, via mid-price biwire cable, to the
expensive stuff I have now is that each change has brought an audible
improvement in clarity, detail, transparency and soundstaging. I tried
electrical cable, and believe me, I found it very "sonically
distinguishable", even from my first speaker cable.

My guess is that each upgrade was to a larger gauge. Actual tests
of common electrical wire versus the exotic stuff show that in a
worst-case scenario, going up 1-2 gauges with the cheaper stuff
more than compensates for any difference. Of course, 99% of us
don't do silly things like drive .5 ohm loads through 50 ft of
too-thin cable, so the differences are usually in the .1db or less
range. Well beyond our actual physical ability to resolve.

In any case, you've already gone way way overkill with the wires
and CD player and so on.

The same process
explains why I have upgraded CD players, amps and speakers over time,

Amps and Speakers *do* make a difference. With amplifiers, it's
usually the power handling and back-end that makes the difference.
That's why a 10 watt tube amplifier with a power supply and capacitors
the size of an orange will do as well as it does.

Speakers - you have nice speakers. No need to upgrade further. Try
placing them in different locations first. Most people inadvertantly
place speakers based upon asthetics and symmetry rather than
absolute best sound.

As for bi-amping, your two amps each driving a pair of speakers
in surround mode will give you WAY more sound. And it's not like
the amplifier is junk, either - it's a good amp.

The Devil wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:00:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


I personally found the large Magnepans to be better than the MLs,
mostly because of the woofer issue.


Some of the MLs (I'm terrible at remembering model numbers) I've heard
- the latter ones - seem to have sorted out the driver integration
problem.

Still, it's obvious. I prefer big panels myself, though, I am
saving up for a pair of the Magnepan MMG-Ws at a paltry $300.

Why? Because while they only do 100hz at the low end, they are
one panel. No crossover at all(!) - which makes them a good
candidate for integration into a system with a fast woofer.

I bet I could kludge a better setup with these than the lower-end
ML hybrids. The MLs have their crossover for their speakers typically
set at 250-350hz, which is way WAY too high, IMO, for a woofer to
be integrated as that's still very directional and full of overtones.

Their lower-end models are 450hz(Clarity, Scenarios, older models).
This is vastly inferior to even a pair of MMGs as 450hz is dead-center
of a typical piano and right in the of the tenor/alto range in vocal
music.

Q: what is the largest electrostatic or planar speaker made that
has only ONE panel(no crossover)?


The ML CLS full-range models,
otoh, were superb. Too bad they no longer make them.


I like those ones too. Can't remember which model I heard, but I liked
them a lot. They didn't image as well as the Quads though, nor did
they have that sheer, hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck-rising realism
with voices and acoustic instruments.

For THAT trick, Soundlab wins hands down. Pricey, though.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


The Devil wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:00:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


I personally found the large Magnepans to be better than the MLs,
mostly because of the woofer issue.


Some of the MLs (I'm terrible at remembering model numbers) I've heard
- the latter ones - seem to have sorted out the driver integration
problem.

Still, it's obvious. I prefer big panels myself, though, I am
saving up for a pair of the Magnepan MMG-Ws at a paltry $300.

Why? Because while they only do 100hz at the low end, they are
one panel. No crossover at all(!) - which makes them a good
candidate for integration into a system with a fast woofer.

I bet I could kludge a better setup with these than the lower-end
ML hybrids. The MLs have their crossover for their speakers typically
set at 250-350hz, which is way WAY too high, IMO, for a woofer to
be integrated as that's still very directional and full of overtones.

Their lower-end models are 450hz(Clarity, Scenarios, older models).
This is vastly inferior to even a pair of MMGs as 450hz is dead-center
of a typical piano and right in the of the tenor/alto range in vocal
music.

Q: what is the largest electrostatic or planar speaker made that
has only ONE panel(no crossover)?


The Martin Logan CLS IIs and most of the Sound Lab models. (except for the
Dynastat).




The ML CLS full-range models,
otoh, were superb. Too bad they no longer make them.


I like those ones too. Can't remember which model I heard, but I liked
them a lot. They didn't image as well as the Quads though, nor did
they have that sheer, hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck-rising realism
with voices and acoustic instruments.

For THAT trick, Soundlab wins hands down. Pricey, though.











Bruce J. Richman

From: (Bruce J. Richman)
Date: 7/23/2004 1:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:


The Devil wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 11:00:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


I personally found the large Magnepans to be better than the MLs,
mostly because of the woofer issue.


Some of the MLs (I'm terrible at remembering model numbers) I've heard
- the latter ones - seem to have sorted out the driver integration
problem.

Still, it's obvious. I prefer big panels myself, though, I am
saving up for a pair of the Magnepan MMG-Ws at a paltry $300.

Why? Because while they only do 100hz at the low end, they are
one panel. No crossover at all(!) - which makes them a good
candidate for integration into a system with a fast woofer.

I bet I could kludge a better setup with these than the lower-end
ML hybrids. The MLs have their crossover for their speakers typically
set at 250-350hz, which is way WAY too high, IMO, for a woofer to
be integrated as that's still very directional and full of overtones.

Their lower-end models are 450hz(Clarity, Scenarios, older models).
This is vastly inferior to even a pair of MMGs as 450hz is dead-center
of a typical piano and right in the of the tenor/alto range in vocal
music.

Q: what is the largest electrostatic or planar speaker made that
has only ONE panel(no crossover)?


The Martin Logan CLS IIs and most of the Sound Lab models. (except for the
Dynastat).

The Sound Lab U1 9 footer made only on speacial order. That is the biggest I
think.






The ML CLS full-range models,
otoh, were superb. Too bad they no longer make them.


I like those ones too. Can't remember which model I heard, but I liked
them a lot. They didn't image as well as the Quads though, nor did
they have that sheer, hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck-rising realism
with voices and acoustic instruments.

For THAT trick, Soundlab wins hands down. Pricey, though.











Bruce J. Richman

Joseph Oberlander said:

Q: what is the largest electrostatic or planar speaker made that
has only ONE panel(no crossover)?

ML Statement. Discontinued, I think.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Q: what is the largest electrostatic or planar speaker made that
has only ONE panel(no crossover)?



The Martin Logan CLS IIs and most of the Sound Lab models. (except for the
Dynastat).

I meant one panel as well. As far as I know, it's rarely done.

The Devil wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:15:23 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


Still, it's obvious.


On some material, but it's not annoying.


I prefer big panels myself, though, I am
saving up for a pair of the Magnepan MMG-Ws at a paltry $300.


Why? Because while they only do 100hz at the low end, they are
one panel. No crossover at all(!) - which makes them a good
candidate for integration into a system with a fast woofer.


You should try building a transmission line bass unit. Do something
nice and it'll work well with Maggies, I bet.


I bet I could kludge a better setup with these than the lower-end
ML hybrids.


I doubt that very much. If the MMG-Ws are anything like the old MMGa
model, they won't be anywhere near as good as any 'stat I know of.

But compared to a $1500+ ML hybrid, they probably would do quite well.

AS for the 989s, No, I've not heard them, though I was impressed
mightily with the previous generation models. My gripe is that the
Quads aren't good rock speakers. THe Soundlabs I heard were much
better as far as bass goes.

Still, I like the Maggies best of all because it's clear that with
any speaker that it's not LIVE, and given that it's plainly a
reproduction, I find a seamless sound to be more appealing than
absolute clarity.(hence my like for panels like the CLS and the
big Maggies.) In any case, planar and electrostatics sound - well,
it's like us bantering back and forth whether a 911 Turbo or
a BMW M5 is a better car. The rest of the world can have their
Buicks and Camrys. Lol.