Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
64.12.116.131
Having lived with a pair of Maggie 1.6 QR's for the past year and a half, I was fortunate enought to secure a pair of 3.6's with Mye stands from Dr. Jazz (Thanks, Al ..) The following is my impressions of the differences between the 1.6 QR and the 3.6RMy system consists of ..
AC power coming through a Monster HTS 3500 series II power center
(except for the Bryston 4B-SST listed below which is direct connected to an AC outlet)
Classe CDT-1 CD transport
Stereovox HDVX digital cable
Bel Canto DAC-2 upsampling DAC
Preamp is a BAT VK-30SE (uses four 6H30P-DR tubes) with phono board
Amp is a Bryston 4B-SST which pumps out 500 WPC into 4 ohms
The speaker and interconnect cables are all Signal Cable and are well broken in
For vinyl I have a Music Hall MMF-7 turntable with a Goldring Eroica MC cartridgeThe listening room is 12 feet by 27 feet by 7 feet 3 1/2 inches high. The speakers are about 54 inches out from the front wall (Cardas formula) and the tweeters are outboard. The front wall has some black foam rubber room treatment, the ceiling has acoustical tile and the floor has a berber rug.
Observations (1.6 QR vs 3.6 R) after listening to the 3.6's for about a month and again this is IMHO
1. The 3.6's ribbon tweeter has more extension and is cleaner and more dynamic than the 1.6's quasi ribbon tweeter. Listening to Classic Records reissue of "Time Out" on vinyl, Dave Brubeck's piano notes "plink" on the 3.6. On the 1.6 it's just a little slower like a "plingk"
2. The 3.6 has more bass (to be expected) - Using the 1.6 and the Stereophile test CD the 40 Hz band plays with a little less volume than 50 Hz band - BUT on the 3.6 - the 40 and 50 Hz bands are about the same loudness. The next band down on the disk is 31.5 Hz and has some usable output on the 3.6 but IS reduced in volume - so the minus 3 dB point of 34 HZ on the 3.6 is about right
3. The 3.6 soundstages differently (at least in my room) - The center fill on vocals etc. is a little more "up front" on the 3.6 whereas on the 1.6 it is a little further back into the soundstage.
4. The 3.6 has a more even response octave to octave - Vocals are a hair more realistic on the 3.6 but it's really a close call here between the two speakers
5. The 3.6 will play a little louder than the 1.6 but does require more power - I notice that I am turning the volume up just a little more - maybe 2 or 3 numbers on the BAT's volume control to attain the same volume level I had with the 1.6's
6. The 1.6 does soundstage width and depth very well - just as good as the 3.6
7. For about 40% of the price of the 3.6, the 1.6 has maybe 85-90% of the sound quality
Bob
Follow Ups:
I like comment # 7 for the poorer among us.
Thought the performance gap was less when replacing the 3.6’s with the into a system and room geared for the 1.6’s or more when inserting the 1.6’s with stuff, room on par with the 3.6’s. The 3.6’s responded better as the electronics got better, but the large room made a bigger difference.
Nicely done Bob. It's hard to tell how much toe in there is because I can't see the listening position. For some tech reasons, Magnepan recommends, for the 3.6, that the tweeter be 1 to 2 inches farther from you ears than mid/bass. Doesn't matter whether they are on the inside or outside. You might try this and see what it does for the "upfront vocals" and soundstage. Mark the spot where they are now so you can always go back. Enjoy.
The 3.6's were placed in the same spot as the 1.6's were. I have moved them around a little but have not really improved how they sound. When placed in the same spot as the 1.6's, the 3.6's center fill does seem a little more forward. The "toe in" is as seen - maybe 10-15 degrees and I am listening from my chair about 7 or 8 feet from the speakers. Each speaker faces a point maybe 2 feet BEHIND my head at the listening position. Without a little toe in the soundstage loses some focus at least in this room. The photo distorts the room's shape somewhat. If I move them closer to the front wall then I lose some soundstage depth. Track 10 of Stereophile's test CD 3 has a good depth test where some fellow walks front, back and side to side while banging a little instrument (drum, tambourine ??) - he is actually testing different types of microphones and how they pick up the soundstage. It's a good test of a stereo system's ability to project depth. He tells you where he is on the soundstage like "I am at the back left". On the Classic Records reissue of Dave Brubecks "Take Five" cut (from the album of the same name) I can notice the snare drums in the left channel up front but when he whacks that kick drum it is noticeably further back BEHIND the left speaker.Bob
I went from 1.6's to the 3.6's and thought the 3.6 were better for sure, but they were more difficult to position. Basically the 1.6's were drop em and forget em loudspeakers. I moved them around a bit and got the "right spot" fairly quickly. (Whereas it took me much longer to get the 3.6's in the right spot). In fact there are times i still move them around (Old tape marks on the floor can attest to that). I miss my 1.6's, for around $1000 buck used they cant be beat.
Enjoy and dont be afraid to experiment, but dont forget to mark areas that you felt sounded good!
Mike
and are those new socks !!and the wood is shimmering nicely in the light -- ?? polished
Very nice setup.
Glad your happy with it. Enjoy.
AL
....no offense, but a 12 ft. wide room is really too small for 3.6s. Even 1.6s need more space. I know, I know....if he likes them....blah, blah, blah....Ok, they probably sound good in there. But they are also probably performing at 60% or so of their potential.
This is a great set up. I have to chant in about the width, big speakers need a big room...I'm sure they sound great, when you get them in a bigger room you will realy see what they can do.
I had them on my 21ft wide long wall and had a wonderfully wide and deep soundstage !!But just because he is limitted in width does not mean he should not enjoy the benefits of the improved clarity, realism and bass that the 3.6 can provide.
I agree also....to a point. But it is such a shame to see people shoehorn a large speaker in a small room. This goes for any type of speaker, but doubly so for maggies. Now granted, 27 ft. is a long room, but 12 ft. wide is VERY narrow for large panels. And I am glad he likes them, but over time I think he will hear the shortcomings.
Al,There is an overhead recessed light directly above each speaker which just happened to be at the point the speakers sound their best. I usually dim the whole room down when listening but turned up the light to take the photo above. Thats why they look as you say "shimmering nicely in the light".
Nice system!Mine used to be very similar, right down to the Bel Canto DAC2, the Bryston 4B-SST, and the Maggie 3.6s.
I've still got the Maggies and the DAC2, but the Bryston had to go. Also, the Mye stands are a MUST. They are not an option -- they are required to get optimum sound out of the 3.6/R speakers. Given the quality of the rest of the system, they are a no brainer as the next tweek.
As for the Bryston, I found that it did not have sufficient presence and dynamics in the midrange, and was a still a bit harsh in the highs, despite the SST designation. You can do better. The speakers and the amp are a system. You can't upgrade one without taking into account the other. I feel that the Bryston works fine on the QR speakers, but is no match for the quality of the 3.6s or 20.1s . I use a Linar 250i and find it absolutely perfect (smoothest highs, great midrange dynamics), but there are Plinius, Simaudio Moon, Pass Labs, Bel Canto, and other well respected amps that will likely give a better sound (though each is different. You might go through a couple to find the perfect match).
Congratulations on the 3.6s, but your audio Nirvana may still await ... :)
audioNeil,I have to disagree at least in part with your comments.
I found the Bryston 4B-SST very smooth in the top end - no harshness at all. They are, in fact, smoother than the Antique Sound Lab Hurricane's tube amps that they replaced. You didn't mention what preamp or cables you used. Interestingly enough, I did get rid of a set of Analysis Plus Oval 9 biwire speaker cables because THEY were too bright with this system. Now these are supposed to be great cables BUT they just didn't work out with the associated equipment that I had. I replaced them with a set of Signal Cable biwire set which do sound noticeably smoother on the top end.
I probably will try out some other amps in the future when time and finances allow but for now will stick with what I have.
I guess I need to qualify my statement more.The Bryston SSTs are not harsh, so much as thin and bright sounding. I know the differences between amps probably measure as being very small, but there is a definite improvement in all categories with my present amp. Now, the Sts were harsh on the highs (though they had better bass IMO).
My current amp is a no-global-feedback design, and I think that affects the perceived dynamics of the midrange. More midrange dynamics and presence means less of a thin sound. Also, the high frequencies are a bit "highlighted" with the SSTs compared to my current amp (which goes out to 1 MHz frequency, so isn't roll-off). My current amp has MOSFET outputs that are so smooth its amazing. There is much less of a spotlight on the highs. They sound more like natural music.
I brought another audiophile over to listen to my system with the Bryston's in place. He agreed that the highs weren't harsh, but they sure were bright and over-emphasised. It could have been because of the midrange, though.
You can check out my system for other components. I use Kimber Bifocal XL speaker cables (I haven't tried others, so I don't know the sonic effect). For a preamp, I have the Placette passive pre, which is amazingly dynamic and distortion-free. I have tried other preamps, and they all add unwanted distortions to the high end, and are not as transparent. For me, a bad top-end kills the enjoyment of the music, which is why so few CDs appeal to me. I much prefer high-res DVD or vinyl (or SACD, but I don't have a player for that now).
n.t.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: