Differences between Magnepan and SMG and SMG-A

[arbalest]

I know someone with a pair of SMG that have not been used in a very long time. That got me reading and thinking about them and many posts seem to lump the two together. Searching specifically on the differences led me to one post elsewhere, by Peter Gunn, saying he does not think much of the SMG, but no detail on why other than the age.

I know that the SMG are older (and the problems that come with that) but can any one elaborate on the design/tech/sound differences?

 

[tomlinmgt]

Maggies don't age gracefully and the fact of the matter is both the SMG and SMG-A are gettin' long in the tooth. They can be repaired and it's not very difficult...messy and time consuming, but not difficult. But the model that followed the SMG and A, the MMG, can be had on the used market for very reasonable prices...and new ones are pretty reasonable, too. That's the model that introduced me to the Maggie magic and it changed the hobby for me in profound fashion by exposing me to design concepts that are radical departures from the typical box type speaker and, as a result, provide some (somewhat) radically different sonic results. The MMG is new enough that it's not likely to have "the problem" of wire delamination. Keep researching and pay attention to the placement requirement...if you can't satisfy that you'll miss the magic and probably should stick with conventional box speakers. But, personally, I wouldn't bother with the SMG or SMGA if they need the wire delamination repair. Now, if it were one of the ribbon tweeter equipped models like the -III/-IIIa then that's a different story. Those models are definitely worth the time and effort.

 

[arbalest]

So, no comments on the design, sound, quality differences between SMG and SMG-A?

I've searched the net quite a bit and the only difference I find is in the popular table that compares all models. Even then the chart only tells me that

a)the SMG is a Quasi-ribbon and, apparently, the SMG-A is not quasi.
b)the SMG-A has a higher upper limit of frequency response.

Has nobody here upgraded from one to another or done a side by side comparison? Has nobody repaired both and have comments on the differences?

 

[Donkey Karma]

I haved owned a pair of A's and done the complete Peter Gun restore.

As for the differences between the two. I can not give you any specs. But what my ears remember is inline with "tomlinmgt". IMHO neither are worth the effort of the restore. That again is my opinion. Many my disagree.

Pre-ribbon tweeter Maggies tend to need much help to carry their need for power, space and proper placement.

I have seen where some have added outboard tweeters to help compensate for the lack of top end.

I guess I also haven't completly answered your questions. Like I said having them side by side to the ear the differences were a wash.

Hope this helps.

 

[BobbyBluz]

I just sold my SMGa's two weeks ago. They sat in storage for several years, I finally brought them home then decided to sell them rather than my cats use them for scratching posts. I got mine for free because somebody left them behind in an apartment after moving and I was given them for helping clean the place out. One of them was damaged (small hole punched into the front & a wire broken) but Magnepan sent me everything needed to do the repair properly. I played around with them for a short time then put them away due to the space needed to get them sounding right. I checked for delamination prior to selling them and all was good. I set them up with a BGW 7500 for the buyer to listen to them on prior to purchase and he bought them on the spot for my asking price of $250. I have no idea of what they may have sounded like driven by a receiver, I used a BGW 500D when I was playing with them and they did suck a lot of power.

 

[E-Stat]

Differences between Magnepan and SMG and SMG-A

There appear to be a few in the SMG run. Details found here.

 

[ARJohn]

Having lived with the SMGA and the MMG for the past few years the SMGA's are to my ears a much better sound . I re did the SMGA's a few years ago and was well worth the time and small amount of money . If you get your hands on a set of the older mags cheap and have a weekend to do the refurb you will be happy .I can't say what is the difference between the A and non A but I guess they would be pretty similar in sound .

 

[kirk57]

So, no comments on the design, sound, quality differences between SMG and SMG-A?

I've searched the net quite a bit and the only difference I find is in the popular table that compares all models. Even then the chart only tells me that

a)the SMG is a Quasi-ribbon and, apparently, the SMG-A is not quasi.
b)the SMG-A has a higher upper limit of frequency response.

That's not correct. Actually a lot of the info in that chart (on the MUG page I'm guessing) is wrong.

The quasi ribbon, essentially AL foil rather than AL wire, didn't come along until a few years later. IIRC, one difference between the SMG and SMG-a is that the 'a' used a series crossover while the earlier model used a parallel one. It also may be that the dimensions of the speaker changed somewhat.

PG was so taken with the series crossover that all his crossovers are wired in series.

 

[ASVJerry]

A 'late' comment...*G* A friend ran into a '9 of 10' SMGa's @ Goodwill, and picked them up for 200$. They must have been well-loved...*S* No marked 'buzzy-ness' or distinct flaws, and they're now my spouse's 'go-to' speaker.
I appreciate the comments and links above this post. It gave me some insight as to what I've 'lucked into'...

kirk57's comment on the crossovers is subject to a 'special shout-out' thanks. Although the link itself is useless (sends you to a book site, with 0 to do with xovers), it triggered a search which took me here:

https://www.tubecad.com/2017/11/blog0402.htm

...which is extremely informative. I'm a ribbon/AMT/dipole/Walsh 'fanboy', to the extent of DIY'ing Walsh drivers. Currently working on a 2-way version; a mid LF+HF, both Walsh; not of the current Ohm design, but a 'true' L. Walsh 'ice cream cone' pair. An appropriate xover has been under study, with a L-R 2nd order as a 'jumping off' point suggested elsewhere. The thought of trying both a series and a parallel version appears to be a worthwhile venture. Easy too, as it's just swapping some wires in the circuits....

That, and doing 'active' vs. 'passive' crossovers....but that's another post for another day...*L*

Anyway...^5's, kirk57....thanks!

Regards, ASVJerry