Magnepan 3.7: I give up

[barrows]

never really understood how networks on cables are going to be a good thing considering that they have to be "universal" in nature. To work to any advantage, a network should really be specifically tuned to the entire circuit, and take into account the amplifier's output impedance, the speakers impedance at the effective frequency, as well as the resonance properties of the cable in that circuit (amp-cable-spaker).

At least MIT does allow for adjusting their networks on some of their designs.

Expecting a single network design to be effective for all possible amplifier/speaker combinations seem to be overly optimistic.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Well, I think I'm pretty stable now. The speakers continue to evolve, a little at least, and all in all I have to say:

 

I LOVE THEM.

 

Ok, so there you go. I'm a Magnepan Fan.

 

The speakers just do something ... different ... than other speakers I've tried out. And when I turn on the stereo now (yes, I'm now turning it off at night -- and my wife is sighing in relief), I just get this big grin as those first notes wake up the room.

 

So, here's my current thinking on tweaks: State of the Tweak

 

I've also settled on WyWires. I've always been suspicious of wires and the "potential impact" they might have on sound quality. Over the course of the last year, I've pretty much given up doubting and I've been repeatedly forced to admit that my earlier position was ... ah ... uninformed. Anyway, back to wire selection. One of the things that I was intrigued about was what could possibly make a difference in sound quality, and I eventually ended up over on Audioholics and read some of their posts about the various relevant electrical properties of wire. I read some stuff over on Empirical Audio (and various other places) and eventually came to the position that it was capacitance in interconnects that was the "critical value". Yes, in retrospect this is a bit narrow and naive, but whatever -- there I was. So, it was with this hanging around in the background that caused me to be more than passingly interested in WyWires.

 

Why? Well, WyWires have tremendous specs (if you're into that sort of thing, which I was). So, I read up on them (what there was), and eventually talked Alex into loaning me a bunch of them. Which I then was able to compare with Nordost, Clarity, Cardas Clear, Synergistic Apex and a few others. The long story short? WyWires had the best blend of sound qualities of that group -- and had a reasonable (by comparison) price.

 

But what sealed the deal was the brand new speaker cable that Alex just finished. In short, it's way better. But here's my nickel tour through cable land:

 

With the WyWires on my Maggies, the bass is strong and deep, the highs are sparkly and extended, and the mids are full and rich. Swapping to Blue Jeans lost me a bit on both extremes and veiled the mids. Swapping to the Cardas lost me even more bass and treble but pumped up the mids and eliminated the veil. Swapping to the Synergistic kept those mids but extended the extremes -- a bit. Swapping to the Nordost gained significantly more in the extremes, but at the cost of the rich fullness in the mids. Clarity brought back the mids and kept the bass. And bringing it back to WyWires, I lost some of the fullness that Clarity brings to the entire band, but kept the frequency extension, grainlessness, and speed -- at half the price.

 

[kennyb123]

I dropped by curbfeeler's home on Sunday to hear his Magnepan 3.7 speakers for the first time. Given all the positive reviews, I was eager to hear these.

 

First a confession: I thought curbfeeler's former speakers, the Maggie 3.6s, did some things very, very well. But unfortunately there were a few things that bothered me enough to keep me from really enjoying them. The 3.6s tweeters seemed to call too much attention to themselves, and kept the 3.6s from disappearing. Also, there were some issues with time domain performance - transients were being smeared.

 

I figured it was curbfeeler's cabling that was doing the smearing. I pointed this out to curbfeeler and strongly encouraged him to try some Nordost cabling. I was delighted that he followed up on this. When I arrived on Sunday, a full loom of Nordost Frey was in place.

 

The 3.7s are just as visually imposing as the 3.6s. So when first sitting down to listen I was expecting to hear more similarities than differences. But what I heard was different enough, that had I been blindfolded I might have thought that I was listening to much more expensive speakers from a different manufacturer. The 3.6s weaknesses had been turned into the 3.7s strengths. Time domain performance and transient speed were both among the best I'd heard from any speaker. The 3.7s totally disappeared and threw a huge and well defined soundstage. Treble was clean with no signs of smearing. Treble was exceptional in fact.

 

Also impressive was the seamless transition between ribbons. This wasn't seamless with the 3.6. I was just reminded that it was easy to point to the location of the tweeter in the 3.6. In fact I couldn't help but get distracted by this. But at no time while listening to the 3.7s did I ever notice the location of the tweeters. All I heard was music.

 

Whereas I never thought I could live with the 3.6s - I could most certainly live with 3.7s - but I'd have to add a subwoofer. My only quibble with the 3.7s is their low bass. It didn't sound like there was much going on below 40 Hz. I know curbfeeler is quite pleased with the bass, but I'm a bass junkie and I would need more low bass shaking the room.

 

curbfeeler must be absolutely delighted with what he's now hearing from his system. I'm eager to hear more of his thoughts on the Frey cabling.

 

 

[curbfeeler]

What I had been using for interconnects was The Wire from Cryo-Parts terminated on cryoed Xhadow short RCA plugs without solder and The Wire soldered to cryoed Vampire XLRs using Chimera solder. Saturday I picked up the loom of Nordost Frey after it had been conditioned on the VIDAR at Nuts About HiFi. Sunday morning the cables were installed after the contacts were cleaned with 99 percent isopropyl alcohol and treated with Caig DeOxit Gold. The 4m speaker cables were elevated using Shunyata Darkfield Minis and adapted to the terminals of the Maggie 3.7s with Vampire banana plugs. This was necessary because the cables came with two Z-plugs per pole at the speaker end, and the 3.7 has only one pair of terminals. A 0.6m balanced IC went between the Bryston DAC and the Parasound JC 2, a 1m balanced IC went between the JC 2 and the Parasound Halo A 21, a 1.25m tonearm IC went between the VPI Classic and the Herron VTPH-2 and a 1m single-ended IC went between the Herron and the JC 2.

Eager to hear what the loom could do I started with some selections from the music server. Corcovado from Getz/Gilberto came to mind. João Gilberto entered well to the outside of the left speaker, and the voice was fleshed out. All previous cabling placed him at the speaker. Astrud seemed more supple. Cymbal was more realistic. There was more wood on guitar and bass. Audience applause felt live. Next up was Pine for Cedars from Nice, Nice by Dan Mangan. Sibilance was more naturally presented, and there was more power in the voice and horns. When the big drum comes in it is more like a peal of thunder. Minotaur from Monterey Jazz Quartet Live revealed a more complete and coherent harmonic envelope in string bass and drums. The tambourine sounded fully fleshed out. Again the audience sounded more immediate. La Segunda by Sera Una Noche gave up a convincing portrayal of the venue and some lovely treble from flute and piccolo. The percussion was nuanced and compelling. Lost Songs of a Rhineland Harper by Sequentia displayed treble purity and subtle touches on harp. Vocals had force, nested in a lifelike ambience.

Ken Bauernfreund arrived around 2:00 to hear the changes to the system. He brought a couple of LPs which we soon spun. The spare Appalachian Spring from Keith Clark on Reference is one of the more successful efforts by Keith Johnson. Very good sense of the venue with a more proximate and immediate presentation of the instruments than KJ typically captures. Then the 45 RPM Rumours was up. Gold Dust Woman was the selection. It didn’t sound familiar. Particularly, the voices were in a warm, glowing aura, and the drumming had a deeper pulse than my 33 RPM WB, which we had to play right away. The 45 RPM could have been a different mix, so divergent was it. Hard to imagine that the mastering chain alone could account for the disparity. Ken requested Britten’s Simple Symphony on Decca, so I cued up the pizzicato movement. The acoustics of the Maltings at Snape were gloriously painted before us. The improvement in bass harmonics yielded subtleties such as the thwack and twang when a string is pulled away from the fingerboard of the double bass and let loose against it, and the thrum of the hall as the low strings play all at once.

All this in the first few hours of play. By all reports the performance will improve as the cables settle with use. The new Maggie 3.7s are likely to continue to get better with time, too.

To summarize the improvements in signal cabling:

Coherent

More organic, whole

Harmonic envelope seems right

Treble is pure

Dynamic swing increased

Great low-level resolution and sense of the venue

Bass timbre is much improved

Noise - what noise?

Thanks to Ken for sharing his impressions of the system here.

The whole question of bass reproduction is fraught with personal considerations.

Some want to feel the abdomen and chest cavities resonate as the room is pressurized by the loudspeakers.

As Ken is a drummer accustomed to feeling as well as hearing his instruments, a predilection toward bass extended in frequency and volume is understandable ;>)

For myself, seldom have I felt the bass pulsating through my body at a live performance of unamplified music. Along a parade route as the larger drums passed a few feet from me I have felt pressurized, but in a seat at a concert venue not so much. What I hear live and unamplified is most often less bass-heavy than recordings.

One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

I want to hear realistic timbre and tone, or tunefulness in the bass. The artist is striving to achieve the sublime, and I need to hear the nuances communicated.

I want speed with freedom from overhang.

The Maggie 3.7s have opened a window onto that sort of presentation in the bass, hinted at by the 3.6s here but achieved by the newer model.

As for extension into the bottom octave, most recorded material won’t plumb the depths anyway. I find bass of the Maggies adequate and satisfying. I’m not averse to trying a subwoofer, though I’m not highly motivated in that direction.

 

 

[barrows]

Glad you found cables which are working for you, perhaps it is time to settle down a little and just fine tune the speaker positions to the last few mm...

 

I found this amusing:

 

"I read some stuff over on Empirical Audio (and various other places) and eventually came to the position that it was capacitance in interconnects that was the "critical value". Yes, in retrospect this is a bit narrow and naive, but whatever..."

 

Yes, as you say, perhaps a bit narrow and naive. Consider for a minute the actual effect of cable capacitance. As an example, lets say we have a speaker cable with a total capacitance of 1000pF over its entire length, and a loudspeaker with ~4 ohm ompedance at high frequencies (I am picking extreme values for the example, most cables will exhibit much lower capacitance, and most speakers much higher impedance at high frequencies). Our example would give a corner frequency of 39,809 KHz, resulting in virtually no roll off, or undesireable phase effects within the audio band. Now, lets try our example with a real world cable and speaker, say the Dynaudio Sapphire, with an impedance of 7 ohms at high frequencies, and the Nordost Frey speaker cable with 11.8 pF/ft of capacitance. let's assume 3' cables so: 35.4 pF of C and 7 ohms of Z gets us a corner frequency of: 642,598 KHz, clearly we are not going to have any audible consequences of the capacitance here.

The point is, that once cable capacitance is sufficiently low, there is no advantage in lowering it further, in fact, because lower capacitance is generally going to be accompanied by higher inductance, it may be detrimental to attempt to lower it too far in a cable design. Most cables I am aware of have perfectly fine specs when it comes to capacitance, there are other factors which are accounting for the sonic differences. I suspect that dialectric effects, and different transmission speeds at different frequencies are responsible for much of the differences we hear. WyWires addresses these concerns through the use of minimal dialetrics, and high speed litz wire construction, Nordost addresses these concerns through minimal dialectrics (monofilament construction and FEP) and precisely controlled spatial relationships of the conductors.

 

[kennyb123]

I agree that the 3.7s have opened up a window to bass not seen through the 3.6s. Also, the bass from the 3.7s is better in many respects. So I agree that bass has improved with the 3.7s. Even so, I'm eager to see your reaction when I bring over a Brahma power cord. Placing this between your wall outlet and QX4 will very likely result in you grinning ear to ear over the increase in low end weight and authority - and "pulse" as you like to call it. Likewise, after it's removed, I think you might find yourself agreeing with me that more low end weight would be a welcome addition to your system.

 

We'll do that in a few weeks to give the Frey some more time to settle in.

 

 

[curbfeeler]

So are you using a 1 ohm resistor to pad the ribbon tweeter, the midrange or both?

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

@Barrows -- well, I was trying for dry, but your point is well taken. Mainly -- I was (and very probably will always be) an idiot. ;-)

 

@Curb -- yes, I'm still using the 1ohm resistor (actually two 2ohm resistors in parallel) to pad the tweeter. I tried it without, but it's too much for my room.

 

I'm not padding the mids at all. Though I do have chokes on both the mids and the tweeter.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

 

Please ignore the clutter -- I'm still waiting on the final components for a rack that was ordered back in June, so everything is a bit of a mess.

 

Anyway, wanted to say that I got the Mye Stands yesterday. They're interesting but not sure they're unequivocally a good thing. The certainly add rigidity, which is good and let me first note that I felt like there are gains across the board. Imaging is now even better, which is almost crazy to say since it was already fantastic. But cues and micro-dynamics are just everywhere now. "Spooky" was a word that came to mind.

 

The issue is the bass, where the rigidity may well be limiting the bass output somehow. Cutting out the bloom, perhaps? Anyway, it (admittedly subjectively) felt like I was getting more/deeper bass out of the speakers with the stock stands. Bass is certainly tighter and more musical with the Mye Stands, but it now feels like the speakers are a bit bass-shy. Subs will solve this, of course, but this was very much counter to my expectations.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

Have you considered roller bearings under the speakers?

I've found the difference rather profound, not just with Maggies but with any type of speaker.

 

My 3.7s arrived last Friday. I installed them on Saturday and they've been playing ever since. (The 3.6s are now for sale. But right now, all four are in the room. To the uninitiated, it might look like a pair of 4-foot wide Maggies.)

 

I'm using the same bases I made for my 3.6s:

1. A trio of roller bearings (in my case, my own Hip Joints design) making a large equilateral triangle on the floor.

2. A large (18" square), smooth, dead marble tile, smooth side down atop the roller bearing balls.

3. A 1" maple ply "platform", sized to match the speaker's footprint, atop the tile (to further deaden the tile and because I think it looks nice).

4. Maggie atop the platform.

 

(Same arrangement is under my subs too.)

 

The pic was taken with before the 3.7s arrived but the bases are the same.

 

Rollers do wonderful things and one of the places you hear the changes is on the bottom.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Barry -- I actually had Grant make up his stands with a set of extra mounting points so I could screw in some Symposium Rollerblock Jr (roller bearings). I haven't ordered those yet.

 

Let me revisit the bass thing a second.

 

When I cranked the dial up to 90dB, all reservations of bass shyness completely vanished. Bass response knocked me clear out of the room, down the hall, out the front door and down the street. I'm now typing from the neighbors house until the track ends. Holy crapola!

 

Okay, so I'm revising my comments about Grant's stands. They're the bomb. Just don't forget to turn that knob up!

 

[Paul R]

What Barry said.

 

Also, new stands might have moved where the perfect speaker location is by a bit. Try moving them an inch or two forward or backward and see if the bass you are expecting returns.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

I'm trying to picture how the Rollerblock will attach to the stand.

If you are considering using the tops with the Jrs., I strongly suggest an audition first.

 

Adding a second "bowl" on top increases damping on ball motion. This translates into a less steep roll-off above resonance (or, in English, less isolation). Try it yourself and see/hear.

 

Of course, if the tops are flat and do not present a second concave surface, there is no problem.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

In the Roller Block Jr, there are two cups of what appear to be equal size. The top cup has a 1/4-20 threaded screw hole for mounting. My understanding is that the two surfaces are the same (concave).

 

My problem with the ball-in-a-single-cup-under-a-board approach is that there could be too much slippage which makes the whole thing seem a lot less stable. Also, I'd need a platform between the balls and the speakers.

 

Here's another thing. Assuming that the weights aren't too high (I think each speaker, is, what, 60lbs or so?), using wouldn't a very hard and very precisely made bearing (like the tungsten balls that Symposium uses) in a very hard and very precisely made cup (like the anodized "cups" that Symposium uses) negate the compression issue to some extent?

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

The second cup diminishes the effectiveness of the isolator by making the roll-off above resonance a shallower one. The ideal isolator will have as low a resonance as possible (ideally low single digits) and there will be as little damping on the "spring" (in this case the ball in cup) as possible.

 

A commercial speaker stand that does the same thing is the wonderful Townshend Seismic Sink Stand (I think that is its name). Note how slowly (low resonance) and for how long (low damping) a speaker "bounces" on it.

 

The reason the two cup assembly seems more "stable" is because it does not move as freely (this is the added damping on ball motion of which I spoke earlier). The thing is, to get the most effective isolation, the ball needs to move as freely as possible. The more easily it moves, the better it will do its job. So rather than it being "too much slippage", it is actually an optimized roller bearing. (Put another way, the more "slippage" the better it will sound - the better the overall focus, better dynamic tracking both macro and micro, frequency extension, pitch definition in the bass, absence of grain in the mids, etc. etc.)

 

In my experience, this is quite audible when everything else in the system is well set up. (Less than the neatest "dressing" of the cables and/or less than clean AC will obscure the differences, if not completely hide the benefits of isolation.)

 

Yes, this means a platform (and tile) because the roller balls need a hard, smooth surface above them.

 

Not sure what you mean by "the compression issue". I haven't experienced any problems with my rollers, whether under the speakers or under heavy power amps.

 

As always, I suggest no one simply take my word for any of this but to try it all themselves and draw their own conclusions.

If you find you hear the improvements with a single bowl (under the ball), you can always have some flat "tops" machined that will attach to the stands.... assuming you still find a need for the stands.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[audiozorro]

After one uses laser measurements and careful listening to locate speakers within fractions of an inch is a frictionless horizontal surface what we really want?

 

Is anyone suspending their speakers from the ceiling like a pendulum and how does it sound?

 

Obviously the majority of folks are rigidly coupling their speakers to floors and sometimes floors and ceilings.

 

Barry - it would be great if you could license your isolation methods for someone to sell as a commercial product that has been tested, optimized and standardized. I have seen your postings and pictures for your hip joint isolation method but I too would have been very tempted just to buy the Symposium roller blocks with top and bottom cups. Since that does not seem to be optimal for isolation, perhaps it's back to the drawing board before spending money.

 

[bdiament]

Hi audiozorro,

 

With a well designed and implemented set of roller bearings, that carefully placed speaker doesn't move. The rollers allow the floor to move, while leaving the speaker undisturbed.

 

This is not at all the same as suspending speakers "from the ceiling like a pendulum" as a such would convey all motion of the ceiling, albeit with a delay. The idea is to prevent transmission of the motion, not delay it.

 

I agree that from what I've seen and read, the majority of folks are rigidly coupling their speakers to whatever they're resting on. I used to do this too. Then I tried rollers and referred to rigidly coupled speakers as "bound and gagged" by comparison. (I've also heard multiple demos of Townshend's speaker stands which accomplish much the same as the rollers. As with the rollers, the differences between "floating" and rigid mounting are not at all subtle.)

 

There is no need to license my design. There are other roller bearing designs, dating back to some from Japan that were introduced circa 1990. The general idea dates back a century and has been used under tall buildings in earthquake-prone areas.

 

As far as Rollerblocks go, I would suggest the original design (the "topless" rectangular blocks). Though I prefer a slightly different design approach, those originals are wonderful. Or the Jrs. without the tops (which if indeed curved, can be pressed into service as a second set).

 

I believe the Cable Company (www.fatwyre.com) still rents these. Several years ago, I rented these and several other footer designs to see if any were effective. All changed the sound, the better rollers improved it (in every area I know how to describe). This was the inspiration to try my own ideas for taking the idea another step, so I had prototypes made and after hearing them (and comparing to other designs) ultimately had enough made to outfit all my gear.

 

No drawing board needed. The idea, when well executed and implemented is wonderful. All I was saying was that using tops (i.e. increasing the damping on ball motion) runs counter to getting the best from them. Used "topless", they are marvelous. Quite a surprise since I expected absolutely nothing at all. Rent a set from the Cable Company if they still have them. And be prepared to do a lot of smiling. (Try them under video gear too.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[barrows]

I believe the speaker company Raidho uses roller ball decoupling as a stock feature of their speakers.

I think the distinctive feature of Barry's approach, is that his decouplers use a shallower radius (than stock configurations of the Symposium products) which results in them being effective to much lower frequencies.

Barry, I think previously you have mentioned that you use 1/2" bearings, what radius is the cup you use, and is it spherical, or multi radius?

Although clearly not effective at lower frequencies, Stillpoints are also recommended by some for speaker decoupling, as an alternative to traditional spiking/coupling approaches.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Thanks for the update, Scot. Based on my experience with Mye stands, your initial post had me questioning my sanity. With my 20.1s, the difference was unsubtle and very consistent with your revisited experience.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Barry -- how about the concern about slipping? If you have a shallow bowl with a bearing in it, and a platform sitting on that, what's to keep the platform from slipping off the bearing and sending your speakers to their splintery doom?

 

[Paul R]

It seems counter intuitive, but unless you fall against them, or you have annoying cats/dogs etc, they are actually less likely to topple over when floating than otherwise.

 

Barry was 100% accurate when he said the speakers will stay still and the floor move under them.

 

-Paul

 

 

[4est]

"what's to keep the platform from slipping off the bearing and sending your speakers to their splintery doom?"

 

The bearings are in a "well", the weight of the speaker keeps it at the bottom. You guys are really over thinking this. First in Music - FIM 305-3, is the closest thing I see for this, but they are steel plated brass IIRC and not aluminum.

 

[bdiament]

Hi barrows,

 

The Hip Joints bowl is a section of a 2" sphere.

I believe there is no need for a multiradius shape, the key being to use a large radius for the lowest resonance frequency.

 

In comparisons with other designs I've tried, the ball in a Hip Joint oscillates more slowly (lower resonance frequency) and continues to roll for a considerably longer period of time (much less damping).

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

No concern about slipping.

Of course, small children, rowdy pets and heavy handed guests must be kept clear, lest they push the speaker (or any other device on roller bearings) off the bearings.

 

My dog and cats frequently visit the studio and there has never been the slightest issue. With human visitors, I always give a "stay clear of the speakers" warning and show them how "jiggly" they are. So far, no problems there either.

 

I've been using this sort of setup under my Maggies (starting with 1.5s) for close to a decade now with no issues.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[sfdoddsy]

I have my speakers on castors, which is supposed to be a no no. However, they certainly vibrate my suspended wooden floor much less, and the ease of being able to pull them in and out of the room for serious listening is a godsend.