Anyone successfully go from stats/ planars to box speakers

default -- Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:08

Hello All,
Anyone here go successfully from a stat or a planar to a box speaker?  To my ear, the cheapest maggie or martin logan outdoes the Wilson or Magico at the $30K price point.  The latter just sound veiled.  Does anyone know why that is? 
At what price point can a person who is used to that sound accept a box speaker?  Does one need the Magico M5 or the big YG's to do the trick?  Or is there something else?

Christian Lam -- Mon, 10/05/2009 - 11:03

Hi sacduser
I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts along with those of JV esp about the MM2.
Though I understand you have moved on the SLs, I would greatly appreciate your advice about positioning the MM2s as I am moving back to the small living spaces of Singapore from Chicago. If you are willing to share your experience with me, please drop me a note to my email christian_lam [at] yahoo [dot] com. Thank you.

schussor -- Fri, 09/18/2009 - 12:16

I have taken my Tympani IV forward with extensive modification and triamping, and room EQ (passive equalizer). The mods include large oak feet with heavy steel brackets and compression bracing, and replacing the midrange with a BG Neo 8 line source. I also arranged the panels to be set in an equidistant arc from my listening seat on either side of the front wall about 5 feet from the wall.  
I have been going around the stores and reading reviews, and started listening to other's  setups, not so much looking for an alternative as looking for goals to reach in improving my Tympani, which I still think have room for improvement. Even in the bass there seems little to improve without going into "punch your lungs in" bass that is both unnatural and uncomfortable. I was considering getting a set of busted tympanis to get an additional set of magnet boards to make the woofers into push - pull operation.
I am at a loss to find demonstrated improvements without going into the new BMW price territory. Even then, improvement is mostly in bass articulation and power.  The midrange is not improved on by anything I heard so far - and no, I did not hear any of the Magicos yet. The Neo 8 drivers - when properly contoured, gives me no loss of midrange quality against the Acoustats, CLS, ESL 57. And is on par with the Apogee Centaur/Grand midrange (use the same contour circuit).
I must say that much of the "thickness" in the Maggies comes from the weak crossover parts quality. just going to an active setup is a tremendous improvement. Bracing the flat panel into a rigid form provides another great improvement (on my Tympani this added measured extension to 20Hz). Then adding a push-pull midrange can help for the 3.X models and the 20, but I trust the 20.1 implementation of push-pull does not leave much room for improvement there.

Mark Atwell (not verified) -- Mon, 10/05/2009 - 19:11

It took six intensive months of auditioning before I bought the Martin Logan SL3's in 1995 and they today still sit in my living/audio room and play superbly.  I heard some amazing loudspeakers (almost entirely box) at the recent Rocky Mtn Audio Fest and although I would have been extremely happy with many of them (had I enough cash) I was still thrilled at how those SL3's delivered Rebecca Pigeon's "Rose in Spanish Harlem"  (my show test track) when I returned home from Audio Fest.  An electrostatic (or ribbon) panel just seems so cohesive to me.  Good luck with your decision.

Jonathan Valin -- Tue, 10/06/2009 - 00:32

 Like Mark Twain said about stopping smoking, I can quit planars/stats any time I want. I've done it a thousand times. Same with cones. 

Boomzilla -- Fri, 10/30/2009 - 16:50

All this thread about "planar sound" vs. "box sound" and NOBODY has mentioned the $#@#$(*&% ELEPHANT of this discussion - THE ROOM.
With ANY planar speaker, you're hearing more room reflections than with ANY (front-radiating) box speaker.  In fact, with planar speakers, you're probably hearing MORE room reflection than direct-radiated sound.  
Do you LIKE the sound of your room?  If so, then for sure those planars will sound "more open" than any box speaker.  If not, then the point-source radiation pattern of a well designed box speaker will probably be your preference.
The sound of the room is the "final frontier" in home audio reproduction.  The sound of your room is an artificial acoustic that superimposes itself over the sound of the original recording's acoustic.  The "room effect" is present on EVERY recording that you play in your home and with ANY speaker that you use for reproduction.  Some electronic feedback systems have been tried (with varying success) to "cancel" the sound of your room by mixing an inverse echo of your room's sound back into the electronic signal.  These systems are not yet sophisticated enough to work well, but they are improving.
Until a way is found to eliminate the sound of your room, what you THINK are your preferences for planar or box speakers are REALLY more about you preferences for how you like the sound of your room.  Them's the facts, Jack!

 A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!

dl (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:07

 Not nearly that simple.
Planar speakers are nearly always "near field", meaning you're listening more to the speaker, less to the room.  But, the room can interact with them in altogether different ways from box/cones--more often in ways that are difficult to deal with.  In neither case are you listening just to the speaker, or just to the room!
For a well-informed critical listener who goes to live acoustic concerts regularly, the preference between cone speaker/room combinations and planar speaker/room combinations is a matter of what type of imperfections you're more willing to tolerate.

Boomzilla -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:57

 I agree - nothing is simple.  But, having said that, the sound of the room still exists.  It exists with EVERY type of loudspeaker, and no amount of kludging with absorbent panels, tubes, traps, etc. will make it go away.  The ONLY hope of removing the room from the equation is to electronically "erase" those echos.  Currently, technology isn't good enough to do that convincingly (unless you're willing to listen with "head in a vise" uniform positioning).
That's not to say that better technology can't provide a closer approximation to "the absolute sound."  But ANY solution that ignores the listening room is doomed to ultimate failure.  Yes, current technology can suggest the original acoustic, sometimes fairly well with a combination of room dampening and electronic echo control.  Yes, planars, dynamics, and horns can all approximate some aspects of the original sound, but until that listening room goes away, we'll NEVER be able to hear all of the original acoustic on existing recordings.  That IS a simple truth.

 A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!

dlaloum -- Fri, 10/30/2009 - 18:49

 That depends...
If you have an absorbent back wall behind the stats - eg: some appropriate curtains... the Room sound is minimised... they have no side radiation to speak of as the side radiation is nulled (being true dipoles)... 
Also the rear radiation - reflected off the back wall - has minimal (no) impact on imaging if they are more than 2m from that reflecting wall...
So like ANY speaker - the room is another variable to consider, reflected sound is an issue with any speaker and how you set up your room makes a big difference.
Also some stats make an effort to absorb back radiation (to some degree) - Quad ESL57's have dampening material on the back to reduce backwards radiation...
My own experience is that is it easier to position and get good results from planars than from boxes - because of the side radiation nulls - quite the opposite of your hypothesis.

Cemil Gandur -- Sat, 10/31/2009 - 06:15

There are no side radiations, nor do planars sufffer from the usual floor and ceiling reflections, that cones do.  They also 'throw' the sound further out (cylindrical radiation pattern vs spherical), which reduces the effect of the room.  That's not to say they do not have their own issues, but, if you've got some space to give them, most planars would have less room issues than box/horn speakers.

Boomzilla -- Sat, 10/31/2009 - 07:29

 Hi dlaloum & Zeb -
Alas, you're wrong.  Side radiation is cancelled at some frequencies because of the opposing phase, but ONLY at some frequencies.  Like antenna pairs, the dipole speakers present a "figure 8" amplitude pattern in the room.  That back wave, however, is to be dealt with.  Despite the attenuation (internal OR external), the dampening materials are ONLY effective at some frequencies.  The remainder of the frequency spectrum is still reflected, very clearly delineating the impact of the room.
Additionally, you are correct that planars, being more like a line source, present less floor and ceiling reflections.   

 A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!

Chris Martens -- Tue, 11/03/2009 - 11:07

Echoing the comments of Alan Sircom (Mr. Plus) and Jonathan Valin, I would predict that over an extended period of time many audiophiles will be tempted to go back and forth between planar dipoles and piston-driver/point-source speakers, and--to add a further wrinkle to the mix--may also want to experiment with omnidirectional speakers. At one point or another I've been down all three paths and have found merits (but of course, different merits) in all three design approaches.

But having thrown omnidirectional speakers into the discussion, I'd be interested to know how forum participants see high-performance omnis fitting into the overall spectrum. Thoughts? Comments?


Chris Martens



Chris Martens
Editor, Perfect Vision 

BruceN (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 14:59

A well designed horn system will make all the planars, omnis and cones sound dynamically limp and compressed.
It will also have more natural detail retrieval that cones, omnis and planars only hint at.
So let's keep ignoring the paying advertisers extreme weakness's and pretend they don't exist.
OOOhhhh, everybody pay attention to the sound stage, not the music.

TheArt (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:58

While different speaker types have contrasting generic characteristics, I think it's a mistake to become 'ideologically' attached to any one design philosophy (or any specific technology).  There are superb speakers available of every ilk, for example - planars (Maggies), stats (Quad), cones (Magico, Wilson), omnis (MBL, German Physiks).
I would advise anyone to forget about what TYPE of speaker you like, and just LISTEN... to individual speakers... on their own merits... in YOUR room. You may find that a certain type of design always floats your boat.  But it's just as likely that you will find yourself choosing between excellent speakers of different types.  All the discussion of reflected vs direct sound, etc. etc. is interesting and illuminating.  But it is also all WORDS and not SOUNDS.
In the end, all that matters is what you HEAR and what you LIKE.  There is no 'right and wrong' about this. 

dl (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 15:19

 Actually, everyone is saying more or less the same things, but differing in the details.  The rear wall reflections are a vexing problem with planars, especially if you can't get the recommended 3' away.  However, side wall reflections are much less of a problem due to the narrow directionality.  Needless to say, neither design achieves its theoretical ideal radiation pattern--and the pattern varies wildly with frequency.  In either case, the most psychoacoustically damaging reflections, from the stereo imaging/sounstaging point of view, are the near-reflections (near the listener or the speaker) that arrive at *almost* the same time as the direct sounds.  The far reflections tend to be ignored by the ear/brain.

Don B. (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 17:01

If I had the bucks I'd have pair a Quads in one room for new age ,acousctic, or vocal driven by a stable tube amp.And a pair of wilsons for rock and blues drivem by a macho transister amp.

KrisFi (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 18:35

Why bother! Until 2 years ago I had boxes exclusively over some 40 years. Granted they were British( my last: one of Stuart Tyler of PROAC fames' early efforts) but even so, having snapped up a pair of used Maggie 1.4s for $350 I'll NEVER go back to boxes, and when that occasional irritating buzz becomes more frequent, it'll be MG1.6QR's next. I have far from idea room conditions but experimenting pays off handsomely-albeit a little tedious!.  Like the REGA ELYS2 phono cartridge, utterly beguiling, even though I know there are better speakers out there: providing one can afford the exhorbitant prices...

Patrick (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 20:11

I have ribbons in a box.I have been listening for almost 40 years  and now I own VMPS speakers RM-x 1 .They are often overlooked by many but once properly set up you are in for a great  TREAT.Try and let me know.I do not want to indulge in Audiophile techno-babbleso so you willhave to try for yourself and accept or refute my post.
take Care

quad-ho (not verified) -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 20:50

 I fell for the Quad "sound" in the 70s and am still under the spell.  An original spec ESL57 let's you explore the music as if sets things in slow motion. A true disappearing act for all their size.  I too was under the impression that a planar or open baffle speaker because of the figure 8 radiation is easier to integrate in the room than a box speaker with a spherical radiation pattern.  Room placement was never a problem with me.                           At one time conventional speakers were intolerable by comparison, couldn't get out of their own way. Fortunately things started improving from the LS3/5a era on and have picked up speed lately. I was impressed by the Hyperion proprietary cones for example. They possess some "electrostatic " qualities of low distortion and effortless neutrality. And there are several more brands. Things are good. 

The incompatibility with the room remains but real room-correction technology can perform miracles. My biggest disappointment in the audiophile world and the publications that serve it,  is the lack of sufficient appreciation of the effects of the room and the necessity of room correction components. There are a myriad of preamps, DACs, what have you, and just a handful of room correction processors. I know REG talked about it but the magnitude of improvement failed to reach too many people. Other than the ESL57 nothing else has had such an impact on me as the Lyngdorf  DPA-1, one of several pretty similar units. The quality of improvement was of the type that I envisioned but it's effect on the music was unexpected. OK, bass was liberated from the room and became tight and coherent , bass instruments came out of their hazy cloak, but more than that it sort of untangled the music and set the instruments apart with three-dimensional space around them. Cleaned up the field by reducing room "noise" and space-distortion.  Yes my jaw actually dropped. The main thing is that it serves the music so well! From Hendrix to Bruckner allows the musical thought of the genius to reach you directly. Helps my appreciation anyway. I just don't think putting pillows around can come anywhere near close. I have not tried it with planars. Anyway I wish there was more energy in that particular field.


Boomzilla -- Thu, 11/05/2009 - 21:34

 Quad-ho says "The incompatibility with the room remains... My biggest disappointment in the audiophile world and the publications that serve it,  is the lack of sufficient appreciation of the effects of the room and the necessity of room correction components..."
To which I must reply:  AMEN, BROTHER!

 A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!

joebob biggs (not verified) -- Fri, 11/06/2009 - 07:27

Had 3 different pairs of Maggies over 20 years and one day just went crazy and ditched them for a pair of Aerial 7b's and have never looked back.  The Aerials were easy to integrate with the room and the system.  They pressurize the room better, I have bass impact again, something maggies just cannot do.  They have bass response but not impact, no pistonic motion, no box volume or port.  Maggies do many things right but bass ain't one of them unless you get subs and aftermarket XO's and the subs need to go higher than most subs will.  Would like to see (hear) Magnepan or one of their resellers really do a 20.1 + bass and sub system right.

Eclipse (not verified) -- Mon, 11/09/2009 - 10:42

Another planar lover here... Have had MartinLogans for over 15 years now and Maggies before those, the last 7 of which using Odysseys driven by Spectral gear. The sound is just thrilling, articulate and quite dynamic. Have compared them with the Magico V3s and the V3s simply floored me with their fast bass which the MLs cannot match (albeit being a sealed enclosure). On the midrange, the jury is still out. Overall, I can easily drive the V3s to clipping when playing Reference Recordings Fanfare to a Common Man. Haven't heard many other boxed speakers to be honest, but apart from clipping, so far the V3s do make a compelling case for an "upgrade" if it were not for the price differential.

BillK (not verified) -- Wed, 11/25/2009 - 06:14

 I never thought I'd ever be able to consider conventional speakers again after living with planars for the past 19 years or so.
A listen to Vivid B-1s last year had me teetering, but after a listen to a pair of Wilson Sashas, I'm sold.
The two technologies do sound different, but after hearing the Sashas I'm no longer convinced that my future lies with planars, and for the first time in 19 years I'd be more than happy to swap my speakers out for something else.

Luvwine (not verified) -- Sun, 12/20/2009 - 00:49

I confess up front that I have not heard the new Magico's (nor any high end omnidirectional speakers), but my experience has put me solidly in the planar camp.  I have sung in choruses for many years including one that is quite large.  I am quite familiar with the sound of say 50-200 voices singing both with and without a large orchestra.  This creates a large soundfield than can be simply thrilling in real life.  Thus, I often include a large orchestra/chorus CD or two when auditioning speakers and the first speakers I heard that could approximate that large soundstage were the maggies.  I tried to like any number of box speakers after the maggies that I auditioned in my price range, but none could match the soundstage and they sounded compressed and closed in to my ears.  While it is true that box speakers can shoot the sound at you and provide more bass "impact" as noted above, for classical music, I do not usually find this sound realistic.  All speakers have their compromises, of course, but for the music I like to listen to, the Maggie 20.1's have been glorious.  I like primariliy Jazz and Classical.  Were I a big fan of say funk or techno music or any rock genre that required rock concert sound pressure levels and throbbing bass, I would doubtless have a different set of priorities and Maggies would not be my speakers.  As it is, I find the bass response to be more than adequate (especially with a Rel sub for the lowest frequencies) and of a more realistic character for acoustic instruments than some of the thumpy boxy bass I have heard coming from some box speakers.  Also, nothing that I have heard from box speakers has equalled the sense of space and air and size of large orchestral works.  I also admire the ribbon tweeter's accuracy of transmitting say the sound of a struck triangle or cymbal.  I do find that they benefit  from  (repuire?) high powered SS amplification and using a tube preamp has also helped balance the system.   Maybe some day I will hear a box speaker that has the virtures of a planar speaker, but I have not yet and the larger Magico's are out of my price range.  I just feel fortunate to have been able to assemble a system that I am happy with.  My wallet hopes that feeling will last a long time!

fruff76 (not verified) -- Thu, 12/31/2009 - 19:53

I replaced my Magenpan 1.6 with Usher CP-6371 (Box) and wish I would have done it earlier. I still scratch my head when I hear about how great Magnepans are. 

Boomzilla -- Thu, 12/31/2009 - 20:05

 I've had Maggies (two different models).  They were great.  I now have Thiels; they're great too!  Some find the differences between planars, horns, & cones to be night & day.  For some reason (room? amplification? ears?) I don't.  The Maggies did some things that the Thiels can't and vice versa.  I've also had Klipsch LaScalas (twice), Cornwalls, & Heresies; again - they did some things the other speakers didn't.  
For now, I'm happy with my Thiels.  Of course, I haven't heard the Maggie 1.7s yet...
Happy Listening & Happy New Year!  Boomzilla

 A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!

Gregor Samsa (not verified) -- Sun, 01/03/2010 - 18:34

I have owned Maggies for 25+ years, going from IIs to IIIs to 3.6s to 20.1s.  The only other speakers I have seriously considered otherwise are Martin-Logans and Apogees.  The only box speaker I have coveted in the Wilson Maxx3, having a very similar experience to JV with the Wilson line. If price was not a consideration, I would own them.  I have not had the privilege of hearing Quads, Magicos or Sound Labs.
Those who say that Maggies are lacking in bass and dynamics have not heard them with Mye stands, which have quite simply transformed my 20.1s. 
Oh yeah. Bring watts.

Eclipse (not verified) -- Mon, 01/04/2010 - 10:03

Although I've been reading this thread for a long time and had decided not to respond thinking that my thoughts (for whatever they are worth) would be too premature, I can now offer some input that may rattle things a bit. So after spending a number of months auditioning a fairly wide range speakers and electronics with the intent to replace my speakers, I have a pair of Spectral DMA 360 Series II (replacing my trusty DMA-250) on order to drive... ahem... my Martin Logan Odysseys! Why? Because I have listened to these amps through Magico V3's and V2's and M5's, and in the past a number of Wilsons in the 10-30K range (like Sophias and WP7) and others with the original versions of the Spectral 360's, and NOTHING has come close to the sound of my panels driven by these superb amps from box speakers in the up-to-$30K range - especially the much-acclaimed Magico V3, despite its shockingly fast and tight (but also thin) bass, because it's the overall performance (and especially the midrange) that matters to me, for the large orchestral music that I listen to. Although I did not care to listen to mega-buck speakers other than the M5, the M5 is indeed leagues above my MLs in all aspects, including everything that electrostats do best like top-to-bottom coherence and speed, and a true reference speaker to my ears with shockingly realistic sound.
There are a number of panel speakers I would consider replacing the Martin Logans with, in the price range that I can afford, and they include their own CLX and the SoundLab A1's, but none fit my room. So there - I believe one CAN go from panels to box speakers, and it will probably cost an arm and a leg.

vibes (not verified) -- Mon, 01/04/2010 - 14:45

Had the Prodigy for a couple of years in the past. Tried and used them with various respectable tubes and SS gears to try make them work but somehow couldn't. When I got the mid nice (dense and organic)--the bass usually suffers (became loosey). In turn, when the bass properly reined in under control--the mid usually turned thin and vapor-like (lacked substance). What made me finally gave up on them was that for the most part, to my ears, they just don't cohere, couldn't quite get them to sound like a piece (which is most disturbing). Especially telling when playing a true full range piano recordings, the plane is seldom aligned straight horizontally as it should between speakers, rather it's up and down, you could almost always tell when the really low notes hit where it's coming from--LOW. Well, unless Odyssey (I have not heard) is a much superior speaker to Prodigy, I do not  see how they could compete (in overall terms) with the better box designs of today--especially in the hot $30K zone--think Magico, Rockport, Tidal, YG to name a few.

Eclipse (not verified) -- Wed, 01/06/2010 - 08:52

With what did you replace yours?

vibes (not verified) -- Thu, 01/07/2010 - 13:53

I replaced my Prodigy with the MG20.1 then.. Which to my ears cohered better, more organic and fuller sounding in the mid and high, though not as transparent and did gave up some bass oomph. Electronics used were--ARC Ref600mkIII, VTL7.5 (ARC Ref3 later), I also swapped in and out a SS FMA611 from time to time (to get different sound). Front end mostly doing the service were the dCS stack (4 units). Cabling I had at one time or another during that period were Synergistic Des Ref.2 (squared), Nordost, Siltech Signature and also FMA's own speaker cable and IC's. Even tried different spikes and tiptoes, various powercords to bass modules too seen duties. It was seven or so years ago, but remembered I did made quite an effort then, somehow got to play, enjoy and lived with them for around 2 plus years. As for the V3, when properly set up and tune optimally, right down to getting all the details right (ac, cabling etc.) they are imho, an excellent speaker for the money. 

Eclipse (not verified) -- Mon, 01/11/2010 - 09:41

OK, so it appears you are yet one more of those people who were not able to move away from stats/planars, at least without spending a lot more money, or are you still looking to make the jump to boxed?  BTW, one of the reasons I chose the Odyssey over the Prodigy is the smallest bass drivers, and I also use a REL sub in reverse phase to attenuate a +14dB  50Hz hump down to +3dB, as well as a Cadock resistor in series with the bass; still not fast enough bass, though, as the panels (or the V3's), but for me it's the panel where the magic happens and where no box speaker in the aforementioned price range has been able to cut it for me (again, for that kind of music). I would consider your 20.1's as one of the speakers I would switch mine out for, if it were not for space limitations again.
Finally, apologies for the multiple posts above - I was being blocked by the spam filter and when the admin lowered the threshold all my response attempts appeared together.

Duke -- Fri, 01/15/2010 - 21:59

This is an interesting subject. 
If planars can be positioned properly (like about 5 feet out into the room), in my opinion they often have more favorable room-interaction characteristics than typical monopoles.   Fullrange planars usually have very good pitch definition in the bass region, but lack bass impact.  So it's a juggling of tradeoffs (surprise, surprise).
Hybrids are a real challenge, because typically we're trying to integrate a line-source mid & treble section with a point-source bass section.   SPL falls off more slowly with distance from a line source than from a point source, which complicates matters.  I've measured significant relative changes in SPL from woofer and panel by measuring at different distances.  One key to a good hybrid is adjustability, in my opinion, so that the level of panel and woofer can be matched for a particular situation.
On the few occasions when I've sold a box speaker to a former planar owner, it has been a box speaker that does a good job of generating a spectrally balanced reverberant field.  I think that's a large part of what makes good planars (and good omnis) sound nice to many people, and it's hard to give up.

jtein -- Sun, 01/17/2010 - 10:00 about horn speakers like Avantgarde Uno G2? How do they stack up against planars/stats/boxes?

Duke -- Sun, 01/17/2010 - 23:47

Jtien wrote:  "How about horn speakers like Avantgarde Uno G2? How do they stack up against planars/stats/boxes?"
My answer will be in generalities and therefore of limited value, because the most interesting and worthy speakers are often exceptions to any general rules.
Good fullrange planars are coherent and natural-sounding, have low coloration, and offer good clarity.  They often have expensive taste in amplification and tend to be limited in dynamics and impact.  They tend to be large and should be positioned fairly far out into the room.
Good box speakers... well, that's a huge category with so much variation.  In general box speakers have the most bandwidth for their size (deepest bass and/or most extended treble), along with the good imaging and a good overall balance of other desirable traits.  In the lower price ranges and/or small sizes boxes totally dominate, as they are the most cost-effective and compact way to get decent sound.  At the middle and upper ends of the scale boxes have competition from other types, but numbers-wise still dominate the marketplace.
Good hornspeakers excel at conveying the emotion in the music because they preserve dynamic contrast the best.  Good horns avoid characteristic "horn sound", and instead have very natural timbre, rivalling the best of the other types in this respect.  Hornspeakers tend to be quite large and usually do not go as deep or as high as comparably-priced box speakers.   
My DIY background (spanning about twenty years) was almost entirely devoted to box speakers; most of the speakers I've owned and sold since becoming a dealer have been planars; and I manufacture hornspeakers.

Geophysicist -- Tue, 01/19/2010 - 14:49

Well, given the title of this thread, and since Duke has decided to chime in, I'll add my two cents. In summary, yes, it's quite possible to go from planars to boxes, depending largely on the box.
In the past, I've owned many speakers, mostly planars. Those include a couple of Maggies, Quad ESL63, Innersounds, and - most recently - SoundLab A-1PX. They all had flaws to a greater or lesser degree, but each and every one also displayed a certain spaciousness and depth/width of soundfield that always occurs with live music and oh-so-rarely with box speakers.
So, the SoundLabs are gone and for just under a year Duke's Audiokinesis Planetarium Betas have taken their place. On balance, these speakers are the best of the lot. I've said why I think so elsewhere, so I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that the Planetarium Betas do less wrong and more right than most anything out there.
I noticed on another thread that Duke is planning on showing his goodies at RMAF 2010. I suggest that you make time for them.

caracola213 -- Tue, 01/29/2013 - 09:34

Thank you for the information! I looked all over google for this.

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.