Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Planar Speaker Asylum

RE: Quad 989 vs Magnepan 1.7i

107.142.146.197

In Reply to: RE: Quad 989 vs Magnepan 1.7i posted by TruMusic1 on August 15, 2024 at 12:32:37

While I've been a Magneplanar fan since I first heard them as a teen in the 70s (and use a pair in the HT), full range electrostats deliver a higher level of coherency than planar magnetics and resolve better at lower levels to these ears.

While the "dot seven" family is decidedly better than the previous generation, there is still a difference in how the different panel constructions sound. At least both are dipolar.

Follow Ups:

The thing planars do better - Jon L 17:42:12 08/16/24 (11)
is image density IME. I fully agree about 'stats having better lower level resolution, and I do love 'stats. But perhaps because the 'stat diaphragm is so light, "massless," the image created seems less dense and overly see-through IMO. The most density is created by good old cones, but they have their own set of compromises of course, so planars kind of hit a nice middle ground.
- "Image density" - E-Stat 18:05:10 08/16/24 (10)
  haven't heard that term before.
  the 'stat diaphragm is so light, "massless," the image created seems less dense and overly see-through IMO.
  Yes, 2.5 micron diaphragms do possess lower mass than the air around it. What I strive for is utter see-through.
  Just like what I hear with live, unamplified instruments. At the concert hall. In the living room with Wifey's baby grand. :)
  Curious you have no fewer than three electrostats listed in your profile.
  
  Edits: 08/16/24
  - RE: "Image density" - kentaja 19:32:30 08/16/24 (9)
    'haven't heard that term before'
    
    Nor have I. What does that mean?
    
    'What I strive for is utter see-through.'
    
    As do I.
    
    'Just like what I hear with live, unamplified instruments. At the concert hall.'
    
    Yep. Just as HP outlined decades ago. The reference is real instruments, in real space, unamplified. That has always been and always will be my reference. If a system can do that well it will do well with any kind of music.
    
    While we are certainly a long way from achieving that goal it is still the goal to attain. It is not the destination that counts it is the journey, the path. The reference of 'I like it therefore it is good' simply results in tale chasing.
    
    I'm afraid that far too many audiophiles have little if any exposure to the real thing.
    
    Of course everyone is free to make their own decision choose their own reference.
    - RE: "Image density" - MWE 06:11:09 08/17/24 (8)
      My best guess as to his definition of "image density" would be a kind of sense of palpability and substance to the sound image. And yes, all else being equal, dynamic drivers probably do, in fact, do this best, but with other significant compromises, as the poster pointed out.
      
      Mark in NC
      "The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
      - RE: "Image density" - kentaja 14:49:03 08/19/24 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Image density" posted by MWE on August 17, 2024 at 06:11:09
        
        'sense of palpability and substance to the sound image'
        
        If that is the definition then I don't buy into the argument that dynamics do it better than an electrostatic. I don't think they do. The original QUAD is nearly holographic in this regard I have yet to hear any speaker that does this sort of thing better. It is especially good with vocals they seem to be floating right in front of me. The ESL-63 gives one the most well defined soundstage I have yet to hear with rock solid images on the soundstage. Not quite as holographic as the original.
        
        Larger panel electrostatics give a better sense of scale a bigger sound field with some loss of soundstage articulation and image precision. Not much.
        
        'Image Density'? Sounds like more useless audiophile jargon to these ears.
        
        RE: "Image density" - Barry 10:03:26 08/21/24 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Image density" posted by kentaja on August 19, 2024 at 14:49:03
        
        This term makes total sense to me, but like you, I don't believe that it's a downside to planar speakers generally.
        
        I found certain versions of ML speakers a long while ago seemed to have no "meat on the bones", a certain hollow sound, and so images lacked weight and substance. I never felt this about KLH9s, Quads, or any of the SoundLabs models. I also don't hear this on any of the Magnepans I have owned - T-1Ds, 3.5s, and 3.6s. Maggies have their own problems of course (most of them can corrected with substantial modifications).
      - And yet... - E-Stat 07:14:52 08/17/24 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Image density" posted by MWE on August 17, 2024 at 06:11:09
        
        And yes, all else being equal, dynamic drivers probably do, in fact, do this best...
        
        all the best microphones from Schoeps, Neumann, etc. are condensers!
        
        RE: And yet... - MWE 12:30:53 08/17/24 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And yet... posted by E-Stat on August 17, 2024 at 07:14:52
        
        The physics of microphones generally aren't fully comparable to that of speakers. If not apples and oranges, then at least oranges and grapefruit.
        
        Mark in NC
        "The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
        
        For me - E-Stat 12:45:57 08/17/24 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And yet... posted by MWE on August 17, 2024 at 12:30:53
        
        the objectives of transparency and coherence are.
        
        Edits: 08/17/24
        
        yes, moving coil microphones are from the stone age /nt - Story 08:04:06 08/17/24 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: And yet... posted by E-Stat on August 17, 2024 at 07:14:52
        
        Actually - E-Stat 08:15:53 08/17/24 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: yes, moving coil microphones are from the stone age /nt posted by Story on August 17, 2024 at 08:04:06
        
        their introduction in 1916 predates the use of moving coils types. ;)
        
        Microphone history (Open in New Window)
        
        know all about it, still have a few good ones somewhere /nt - Story 08:49:54 08/17/24 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Actually posted by E-Stat on August 17, 2024 at 08:15:53

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Parts Connexion