MAC Autoformers?


Someone is selling a MAC MA6500 Integrated claiming its superiority over the Ma6600 due to the fact that "it does not have the degrading autoformer design found in the MA6600". That is the first time I've heard a claim that the autoformer was a hindrance to better performance; I thought quite the opposite. What do you MAC Maves think?
pubul57
@ramtubes
Roger, you might want to read this:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php
If the Quads were close to the wall behind them, they will often have one-note bass. This often happens when a solid state amp is employed; the customer will note that there is no bass on account of the higher impedance of the speaker into which the amp can't make power, and so will move the speaker around, eventually finding out that if they move it closer to the wall behind it, they can finally get some bass. But this is not how *any* planar is supposed to be set up.

ESLs don't respond so well to voltage rules, depending on the speaker- the Quad ESL57 and 63 being pretty good examples- also the Sound Lab ESLs, AudioStatic and even Martin Logan (if you use a set of ZEROs to allow for their low impedance).  The reason is, unlike box speakers, the impedance curve is not also a map of its efficiency, which is pretty much the same across its bandwidth (on account of its impedance being based on a capacitor rather than a driver in a box with resonance). This is typically a 9 or 10:1 change in impedance! If the amplifier output power varies with this curve, the result will be too much highs and not enough bass.

The solution we've found with our customers using Quads is to have them pull the speakers further out into the room, so there is at least 5 feet behind the speaker to the wall. In this way the bass normalizes and customers report that the Quad is playing bass quite well.
I know of no speaker maker who designs for high output impedance amplifiers.
I can name a few- Coincident, Classic Audio Loudspeakers, DeVore Fidelity, Audiokinesis, Lowther, PHY, PureToneAudio and many more. Essentially, any speaker that works with an SET is working with an amplifier of high output impedance.

We are quite a ways off-topic; if you would like to discuss this further it would be a good topic for another thread.

The Eminent Technology LFT-8b, while employing magnetic-planar drivers as do Magneplanars, is rated as 8 ohms by it’s designer, Bruce Thigpen. While Maggies’ impedances are solidly in the 3-4 ohm range, the ET LFT driver is an almost purely resistive 11 ohm load (the speaker’s 8 ohm rating a consequence of it’s dynamic woofer, for frequencies 180Hz down).

Maggies require a LOT of power, very expensive in a tube amp. The matter is exasperated by their 3-4 ohm load, almost all tube amps putting out half as much power there as at 8 ohms (the notable exception being Music Reference/Ram Tube’s Roger Modeski’s RM-200---100w/ch @ both 8 and 4 ohms!). If you bi-amp the ET LFT-8b, you can use a modestly-powered tube amp (the RM-200 works splendidly, as I have heard does the Atma-Sphere M60) on the m-p drivers, and a ss amp on the woofer. The panels and the woofers each have their own binding posts.

Ralph,
I did read your white paper before entering this discussion. Lets just agree to disagree. Peter Walker designed the 57 to be used with an amplifier with a damping of 20 and even specified the series inductance. To say that these speakers will play with a damping factor of 1 is not fair to the speaker, no matter that some people like a widely altered frequency response. How can we discuss little differences in distortion when the frequency response has been so altered to make the speaker unreconizable?

Thats a nice little list of expensive speakers that represent a vanishingly small part of the market. I agree a single driver speaker like the Lowther will work just fine with your amplifier. 

As an antique radio collector I have given a lot of thought to how early SE amps (the 45 in particular) got relatively flat response without feedback. In that case the driver was a single cone in an open baffle cabinet so the impedance rise was not so severe and relatively flat. These early radios sound pretty good. However that does not represent modern popular speakers. 
ramtubes
Ralph,
I did read your white paper before entering this discussion. Lets just agree to disagree. Peter Walker designed the 57 to be used with an amplifier with a damping of 20 and even specified the series inductance. To say that these speakers will play with a damping factor of 1 is not fair to the speaker, no matter that some people like a widely altered frequency response. How can we discuss little differences in distortion when the frequency response has been so altered to make the speaker unreconizable?

Hear hear, good to see someone else thinks the same, about amps becoming tone controls with wild speaker impedance curves. Low output impedance (damping factor) and current are the only fix to make the amp stay reasonably flat.
Or I suppose you could have an "inverse tone control" to counter it, but the amp in question will start to gag itself very early in volume level.

Cheers George
I have started a new topic to explain how conventional output transformers differ from Autoformers.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/autoformers-the-benefits-in-matching-amp-to-speaker

I also would like to note that the OP of this thread, Paul R owned a RM-9 Special Edition. We miss Paul, a really good guy.