Here is another article that does a good job of dispelling the myth that it is driver mass which affects the speed (i.e. transient response) of a bass driver: Woofer Speed
David, please describe exactly what you mean by "fast" or "slow" bass. I think saying a Spire has "slow" bass is a ludicrous statement.
I find the Maggies sound very lifelike and have better bass integration than the Logans. However, having listened to electrostats for so long, I can never get past this lack of resolution Maggies seem to have.
If you like the sound of the kick-drum, get as big as SS amps as you can find. I heard the 20.1's driven by some Boulder monoblocks, and it's bass that is hard to forget.
Quite possible considering room acoustics, just compare the panel size..I have heard a lack of resolution in the past on Maggie 3.6Rs but am not sure if it was the speaker or the system at the time. This resolution issue is why I have never owned a Maggie before but to my ears the 20.1 is an entirely different beast. I find the resolution much better than the Summit. I am continually surprised at the detail on CDs that I have play many times over the past 15 years.
I'm not contesting the fact that there are sonic issues with hybrids. I am contesting the characterization of the problem as one of a "slower" woofer being able to keep up with a "faster" panel. The idea that panels produce "faster" bass and woofers, due to larger mass, produce "slower" bass is a myth. The problem isn't that the woofer just can't "keep up" with the panel.
I think the biggest issue with hybrids is dealing with the phase and dispersion relationships between a line source dipole and a point source monopole. It's funny. Tweeters have a very small mass compared to a woofer, but you never seem to hear people talk about the woofers being unable to keep up with the tweeters when discussing box speakers. But with esl's, everyone seems to fall for the myth of the slow woofer being unable to keep up with the esl diaphragm.
Justin, the reverberant behavior issues associated with dipoles exist because the frequencies produced are above the Schroeder frequency for the room, typically 200Hz-ish. Below Schroeder, room modes (and not reverberant energy) are the principal problem and there's no intrinsic acoustic benefit for a dipole (or multipole) sub....Dipole subs seems to make the most sense with, say, CLXs, unless you damp the rear wave of the CLX to try and force the speaker to behave like a monopole. In which case, to my mind, JL subs make sense. Otherwise something with a Descent type radiation pattern makes better sense - or indeed a true dipole sub...
Jeff was always on about woofers not being able to keep up.
But really that is just the subjective impression one gets when listening. It isn't, as you state, the technical reason.
Dipole subs seems to make the most sense with, say, CLXs, unless you damp the rear wave of the CLX to try and force the speaker to behave like a monopole. In which case, to my mind, JL subs make sense. Otherwise something with a Descent type radiation pattern makes better sense - or indeed a true dipole sub.
Justin, the reverberant behavior issues associated with dipoles exist because the frequencies produced are above the Schroeder frequency for the room, typically 200Hz-ish. Below Schroeder, room modes (and not reverberant energy) are the principal problem and there's no intrinsic acoustic benefit for a dipole (or multipole) sub.
I currently have the orginal Summits and Maggie 20.1. I decided to buy the 20.1s after hearing them in a home situation. I wasn't planning on buying new speakers but was just blown away by the detail and realism. I kept the Summits in case I had made a mistake. I have now had both for the past 6 months but will be selling the Summit's soon. They are fine speakers but for my tastes the 20.1s are in a different class.
I haven't heard the CLX but would think the 20.1s should be compared to that rather than the Summit. I don't use a sub with 20.1s as there is plenty of bass. In fact the bass is the most realistic of any speaker that I have heard. A kick drum is presented as a full size instrument.
As you can tell I just love the 20.1s and have really been surprised at how much better I found them in comparison to the Summit's. Of course that is judy my opinion and other people would obviously have different tastes.
I just know I'm right.
Neil - I too have heard the maggie 20.1 and think they are great. I listened to the summits in one store - and then ran over to listen to the maggie 20.1s. I had (and still have) Odysseys. I listened to the 3.6 & 20.1 that day. Thought both were very good - but the big diff between the 3.6 & 20.1 for me was in the bass dept. That was one of those listening sessions (about 3 years ago) - where I am still scratching my head wondering if I should go back and listen to the 20.1s.....At one point - I had to walk between the 20.1s and behind them because the voices seemed so holographic... One poster said that he thought the maggies made voices sound 'as big as a microwave' - and if I do recall - it does seem like voices seem to image big....Do you agree with that or no?
Neil - I too have heard the maggie 20.1 and think they are great. I listened to the summits in one store - and then ran over to listen to the maggie 20.1s. I had (and still have) Odysseys. I listened to the 3.6 & 20.1 that day. Thought both were very good - but the big diff between the 3.6 & 20.1 for me was in the bass dept. That was one of those listening sessions (about 3 years ago) - where I am still scratching my head wondering if I should go back and listen to the 20.1s.....At one point - I had to walk between the 20.1s and behind them because the voices seemed so holographic... One poster said that he thought the maggies made voices sound 'as big as a microwave' - and if I do recall - it does seem like voices seem to image big....Do you agree with that or no?
Rich,
I have a lot of stuff going on and I will read your articles when I have a chance. All I am saying is that I hear the woofers "woof". The sonic difference is as I described it. The bass in a hybrid speaker such as the Spire or the Summit just doesn't sound like it is in sync to my ears, whereas in the CLX or the Soundlab, the whole presentation is of the same cloth.
Folks can verify what I am saying by listening for themselves. If the sonic difference is not worth it, save the $$$ and stick with the hybrid.
How do the 20.1's reproduce classical? Specifically, image size, instrument location, and hall ambiance.
GG
I can't really say as I don't listen to much classical. I have some classical CDs including Bach, Schubert, Vivaldi but haven't listended to any on the 20.1s. I mainly listen to blues, folk, americana, bluegrass and even some Laurie Anderson, Peter Gabriel, and a bit of Jazz, but not much classical of late.
I can say that the positioning of instruments on acoustic type music is really superb but I don't know what they would do to classical. I will have to listen and get back to you.
I would be surprised if it wasn't stupendous, state of the art etc..... In most reviews you will see that they excel at classical because of their incredible imaging, soundstage, and timbre... I have heard a tympani on them and it was very realistic.... Would be very interested to hear your impressions as well Neil....
Enter your email address to join: