New Magnepan "Concept Speaker" introduced at Audio Connection

Just saw a Youtube clip by the Audiophiliac Steve Guttenberg on this new design by Magnepan. He raved about these speakers on the realism that they created. Anyone else heard these???

The open baffle servo-feedback bass system used in the GT Audio Works magnetic-planar loudspeaker mentioned by faxer above is the GR Research/Rythmik sub. It is available separately from both GR Research and Rythmik, and can be used with any loudspeaker. It is THE ultimate sub for all planar loudspeakers, as it’s dipole characteristics make it possible to blend seamlessly with them as no monopole woofer can (even in swarm fashion). It also features the Rythmik servo-feedback system, which when combined with the virtues of ob bass, creates the best bass reproduction you’re ever likely to hear. It has found favour with owners of Maggies, Quads, Eminent Technology LFT’s, Acoustats, and of course GR Research speaker owners.

But the Magnepan "Project" loudspeaker is a complete package, including the "midbass coupler" used in the 30.7, as well as the fantastic Maggie ribbon tweeter used in the 3.7i/20.71/30.7. It will be interesting to compare the Magnepan OB woofer system with that of GR Research/Rythmik. The GRR/R uses 2 or 3 (or more!) 12" woofers per side, the Magnepan eight 6.5" per. The GRR/R uses servo-feedback woofers, the Magnepan DSP. Should be interesting!

That would be interesting. Though they have different purposes, in that the Magenpan woofer is designed to be small and easy to hide. When it comes to output and bottom-octave performance, I've no doubt that the GR Research/Rhythmik comes out ahead -- but you can't hide those big H frames behind the couch!

     It makes a lot of sense that the true-ribbon and quasi-ribbon dipole plana-magnetic transducers, for the midrange and treble output, are positioned next to each other in the same panel.  This is because soundwaves in these frequency ranges have a very directional radiation pattern that need to be precisely positioned in relation to the listener's ear positions when seated at the designated listening position in the room for optimum midrange, treble and imaging results.  
     Conversely, it makes very little sense for bass transducers, in any form (dipole, open baffle or dynamic), to be positioned in the same panels with or even in close proximity to the panels containing the midrange and treble transducers.  This is mainly due to the fact that bass frequency complete cycle soundwaves are physically much longer than midrange and treble frequency complete cycle soundwaves.  The lower the frequency, the longer its complete cycle soundwave and the higher the frequency, the shorter its complete cycle soundwave.
     This results in a continuum of all audible frequencies having complete cycle soundwave lengths that are directly proportional; from the deepest audible frequency of 20 Hz having a complete cycle soundwave length of about 56 feet  to the highest audible frequency of 20,000 Hz having a complete cycle soundwave length of a fraction of an inch. 
      Greater understanding of how we all perceive sound is gained by the fact that we are unable to localize sounds (determine exactly where the sound is originating from) at frequencies of about 80 Hz or less but increasingly more adept at localizing sounds at frequencies of about 80 Hz and above. 
      Some deep bass soundwaves have actual lengths that exceed the physical room dimensions in many typical domestic listening rooms and humans require at least one complete full cycle bass soundwave to be present in the room before our ears can detect it, send the information to our brains and have the brain create the perception of the corresponding bass tone. The brain also requires the input of multiple complete full cycle bass soundwaves to create the perception of a change in bass pitch.  By contrast, our brains have a relatively easy task of creating midrange and treble tone and pitch perceptions due to their much shorter soundwaves.
     Given the above, my main concern is the bass response performance of the Magnepan "Concept Speaker".  Would I consider its bass performance, utilizing DSP but only 2 bass cabinets of unknown design with 6.5" woofers and seemingly positioned haphazardly, as fast, smooth, powerful, dynamic, effortless and detailed as the Audio Kinesis Swarm/Debra distributed bass array system (DBA), utilizing no DSP but 4 bass cabinets of sealed or ported design with 10" woofers and each sub positioned strategically and sequentially?  
     I think it's only fair that I reserve judgement until I actually listen to it.  I attended a Wendell led demo of the $30K 30.7 speakers at a local high-end shop here in Indy a few months ago and was highly impressed. 
     When I asked him whether he ever considered combining the 30.7 or 3.7i speakers with a AK or custom 4-sub DBA system at a significantly reduced price, however, he seemed to be completely unaware of the scientifically proven and very effective 4-sub DBA concept.  
     This was not very confidence instilling but I decided to buy a pre-owned pair of 3.7i anyway and create my own "concept speakers".  I'm certain that this combination represents a smaller version of most of the 30.7's very impressive attributes at a significantly reduced price of less than $10K, even with both purchased brand new.


Tim, Duke of Audio Kinesis was asked by the owner of a planar loudspeaker if his Swarm or an OB/Dipole woofer system would meld better with the planar loudspeaker. Duke recommended the OB/Dipole. The monopole characteristics of sealed and ported subs is a major factor in making the seamless integration of planars and subs as unsuccessful as so many have found it to be. Magnepan chose to go with an OB/Dipole woofer system in the proposed new model for exactly that reason.

The distributed array bass system addresses the problem of bass/room interaction, but does nothing to address the issue of the difference between monopole and dipole propagation. OB/Dipole woofers eliminate that difference.