This reminds a thought of Marcus Aurelius:
“May I be given the strength to bear what cannot be changed; the courage to change what can be changed; and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.”
In fact, I am very satisfied with what I hear, and I am not looking for an expedient or palliative.
But I am surprised that for the serious 20.7 does not seem an exact extension of 3.5.
The comparison is not linear: the 20.7 goes down lower in frequency, but the 3.5 offered me a more present sound on some frequencies above.
1 Like
I’ve been reading a lot about Magnepans. I’m strongly considering replacing my 25+ year old Martin Logans, and both ML and Magnepans are on my short list. Budget is pretty wide open, but I have a couple ML Balanced Force 210 subwoofers so my thoughts range from 1.7s all the way up to 20.7s, while in the ML line I’m considering 13As and 15As.
In all my research, I found a really interesting comparison from someone who concluded that the 20.7s and 3.7s use the exact same ribbon tweeter and midrange, and only the bass section varied. I’ve also found many comments that a 6mm location change can substantially alter the sound.
Have you had time to experiment with speaker location? I have a feeling it’s very important and could account for the differences you’re hearing.
1 Like
I don’t want to rain on the Magnepan parade. I live in their hometown and loved my 20.7s with subs. However if you are Maggie fan you should really listen to the MBL 120s or 126. For a similar price point they sound better in my opinion. The speakers have a different design but the transient attack on the front end of the note is similar and the MBLs have a better tonal quality and fuller soundstage.
3 Likes
I also find it puzzling that the two speakers should differ as you have described it - the pattern of peaks and troughs in the bass frequency response for two speakers so closely related should be largely a function of the geometry of the room and speaker position (at least above 40Hz, below which the 3.5 is specified to roll off faster).
I listened to the Qobuz stream of the Michael Tilson Thomas recording of Carmina Burana. I should learn to stop pontificating about the sound of records I have not heard. I thought the sound was spectacular and I had no complaints about the bass, though I did perceive an intermittent prominence of the bass which I call explosive. This explosiveness may be the same phenomenon you refer to as unnatural, though of course it is also possible that our two systems are reproducing the bass on this recording very differently.
The LP was an early SQ quad recording. This might explain why the engineering and mastering values are so different from the kind of sound Szell and Maazel got from Columbia in that era. I wonder if the original stereo LP and the stereo CD are based on a different mix of the same microphone feeds as used for the quad. If the SQ channels were folded down in the stereo mixing one might easily get an unnatural representation of the sound of the hall, especially affecting the bass frequencies.
Dutton has released a multichannel SACD of this recording which might shed some light on all this, but for me Carmina Burana is something of a guilty pleasure and I do not wish to spend the time or the $35 SACD price to investigate further at this time.
1 Like
This recording sounds very different from Szell’s rather flat ones (despite exceptions like Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra, or Prokofiev’s Symphony 5).
Maazel’s Decca recordings seem thicker and have more relief, like those with Chailly or Ashkenazy in the 1980s-1990s.
Yes, the quadraphonic and the option of spectacular may explain why what we hear on the CD sounds artificial. I haven’t heard the SACD, maybe the mix is different.
Have you listened to the specific passage I mentioned? It is a blatant example of extreme bass. I’m not saying it was absent from the 3.5s, but I never noticed it until the 20.7s. However, I rarely listen to this disc, so I can’t draw any comparative conclusions, especially since I don’t feel like reinstalling the 3.5 to test the difference.
I did listen again to the noted passage in track 13 and I did hear more rumble than other passages, but there was no shaking of the walls or any other alarming effects. I lightly touched the rims of my subwoofer cones when the passage begins and I did sense more energy than other passages, but the cones were not moving violently. I also listened with my subwoofers bypassed to better approximate your situation, but there was less bass output (as I might have expected, given that the effect of my subwoofers is mostly to eliminate a 14 db trough at 44 Hertz and a 3db peak at 62 Hertz; the measured response from 25 Hz to 40 Hz is similar with and without the subs.) I also listened with my Audeze LCD-X and Focal Stellia headphones, and there was nothing unusual compared to the other rumbling passages on this CD. (I think we both agree that this CD has more hall sound than other performances of the work.)
The music before 1:56 on Track 13 is very quiet so your room can’t be storing a lot of excess bass energy when the passage begins. I suppose it is possible that some single frequency is exciting a resonance in your walls or shelving or equipment. If anybody else is following this thread they might help us out to see if they can reproduce the effect you observe. Otherwise we might best leave this beautiful black swan of a record swim in peace!
I was so surprised at first hearing that I then checked directly from the source itself (the disc).
Look at those two frequency measurements, before and during the peak, especially the second one at 1’58, between 20-100Hz:
You misunderstood me. I was describing the frequency response of my system (with vs. without subs), as measured by a microphone at the listening position feeding my DSPeaker X4 using a variety of short tone bursts and longer frequency sweeps. This has nothing to do with the distribution of frequencies on any particular disc. Also understand that the DSP was not active during my listening to this record (nor, indeed, most of the time I listen to music.)
Your graphs certainly confirm that there was a huge momentary surge in the bass, over a broad range of bass frequencies. On the other hand the peak bass level (at 31.8 Hz) of around -17db is only 16 db above the earlier peak midrange level (at 630.8) of around -33 dB. I am not sure how this would translate to sound pressure levels in your room, as it seems to me that you have to integrate over a range of frequencies and correct for non-linearities in your system response. Also you would need a way to measure and include energy storage issues.
I don’t think there is a difference between our thinking here as to what is on the disc. There does still appear to be a difference between what we are each hearing in our respective rooms. I don’t really pretend to account for it. However, I wouldn’t exclusively blame the CD unless others with big Maggies or other full-range systems were to report that they hear an earthquake-type sound as you have described it. Unfortunately, we have yet to engage anyone else on this.
I think this is where @karl-moller’s post above belongs. Please let me know if I am incorrect.
This sound for 6 seconds is out of line with what the bass drum produces elsewhere on the record, which is already very low. Like an unlikely but possible “rogue wave”, as the oceanographers say. Perhaps particular drumsticks, or a particular way of rolling. I may have exaggerated by talking about an earthquake, but the effect is still very impressive.
I mentioned it as a personal thought, mainly to mean that my 20.7’s are capable of very low and powerful sounds, whereas I believed they were still compressed in this register.
Well you have left Belgium’s graphs in this thread and my comments on same, though you have also copied my comments into a new thread named Carmina Burana. With his next reply I think Belgium and I have each said what we wish to say, so unless other people listen to the CD and make comments I don’t think we need a Carmina Burana thread.
It is a hard topic to classify because our discussion is precisely whether to attribute the things Belgium heard to (1) the content on the CD vs (2) the Maggie 20.7s vs (3) something else in Belgium’s system or his room. Of course it is possible that all three factors are implicated.
1 Like
Nope, you mistakenly posted your comments into a new Carmina Burana thread (these things happen).
I moved your post here after @scotte1 pointed out your original Carmina Burana post appeared to be a homeless orphan. I brought @scotte1 's post along for context and noted “I think this is where @karl-moller’s post above belongs.”
1 Like
I’d like to know more about your results with your 3.7is and your M1200s.
M1200s and a pair of 3.7is or 20.7s are in my future and would love to hear more about your wonderful system that’s right up my alley…
If you go the 20.7 route you will probably want a little better amp than the 1200’s. I had BHK 300s for the 20.7s. The big bass panels need some juice to thrive.
3 Likes
I always thought when I finally had the money to make some serious upgrades that I’d go the Mark Levinson route. I like the sound of all their stuff. The trouble is, I can’t pick most of it up. That was one of the attractive things about the M1200s. They sound great and you won’t get a hernia picking one up. Whether a BHK 300 would sound better than my M1200s with the 3.7is, I can’t answer. I can tell you the M1200s sound better with them than my M700s did and they sounded much better than my Adcom GFA-555.
I can’t get a pair of 20.7s in my listening room. It’s in the basement and there’s a I-beam that limits me to the height of the 3.7is. I’ve heard 3.7is, 20.7s and even the 30.7s in the same auditioning room. Yes, each step up sounds a little better. I think the most noticeable improvement as you go up the line is bass performance. Since I can’t fit 20.7s I added a set of DWM bass panels. The 3.7is with the bass panels sound mighty close to 20.7s. At least to me.
If I were to go the BHK 300 route, I’d need to replace my P12 with a P15 or P20. Then I’d have 3 components in my rack that I couldn’t easily lift without help. I’m happy enough with the way they system sounds to just be content and listen to music.
I had some Rel Carbon limited subs for.my 20.7s. They matched well. Maggie’s need subs as do most full range speakers.