• Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Dave 22:36:46 06/13/00 (0)
  In Reply to: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 00:34:06:

  I think your experience is in line with what I was trying to describe in the earlier exchanges we posted titled, Maggie Bass Response. As much as I like Maggies, for me the bass is pretty unconvincing.

  Dave
  
  

  ---
• Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? KevinF 08:52:02 06/10/00 (3)
  In Reply to: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 00:34:06:

  Room placement is very critical for the Magnepans to sound their best.
  It takes a bit of experimenting to find the speaker and listening postition that gets the most from them. In my room the bass is affected by offset from the back wall and toe-in. Usually conditions are not ideal in a dealer's listening room for auditioning any speaker and especially Maggies, they sound better in your home.

  I would like to eventually demo a sub particularly if I integrate the stereo into HT. For music I have gotten great results with a bit of experimenting and tweaking and more bass is not a priority.
  
  
  

  ---

  • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Andrew 11:38:20 06/10/00 (2)
    In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by KevinF on June 10, 2000 at 08:52:02:

    Suboptimal setup may have been the case at the dealer's--the Maggies were around 6 feet out from the wall... and I don't know how good Mark Levinson is at bass "slam" (though one would expect it to be great at everything).

    -Andrew
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Scott R. 16:38:13 06/11/00 (1)
      In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 11:38:20:

      Hey-
      The Levinson amps (I've had a 331 and have a 332) are pretty
      clean, approaching "bright", but have the best control over my 3.5R's I've heard. The 332 is in the "un-upgraded" version, before the Cyano-something-esterate-or-other circuit boards, and other upgrades ton bring it up to current 335 circuitry. The upgrade tames the brightness, but at $2K for a 1+ year old amp, I think I'll give my business to someone who gives a shit.

      
      Anyway,

      Yes, with the wrong source material and all Levinson components,
      The Maggies can tear a head clean off, and leave it wanting much more
      bass impact. Best to restore the head onto its according body, preferably in the sweet spot, lest imaging be totally screwed up. Or!
      Make an actual "head in the vise" device on the stereo chair, and leave your body to do productive things like the laundry so your wife won't yell at you. Scratch that, you have to change albums.

      Happy Listening
      Scott
      
      

      ---

      • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Gresh7 17:49:05 06/13/00 (0)
        In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Scott R. on June 11, 2000 at 16:38:13:

        Well,forget M.Levinson's on Maggies,CAN YOU SAY STERILE! Not the way to go.There are many others out there that will work much better.
        

        • Gresh Audio

        
        

        ---
• Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? kevin 06:54:55 06/10/00 (4)
  In Reply to: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 00:34:06:

  I suspect that the "bumping" at a dance club, like with most amplified concerts of rock/pop/dance/rap etc., is a function of intentionally boosted bass. If you had a recording with the bass intentionally boosted, I suspect that the 3.6 Maggies would reproduce the "bump" accurately. IMHO, if you are getting additional "bump" from the Vandy's vs. any other speaker, not just the 3.6 Maggies, with normally recorded material, it probably has to do with the frequency response of the Vandy's having a boosted bass range of their own in relation to the other speakers. Artifically boosting the bass is an old trick used by even highly respected designers of loudspeakers. In my experience, naturally recorded bass in music, especially the lower octaves, doesn't really "bump", it is just "there" as a palpable, yet musically distinguishable presence in the room. So if you have an accurate recording of bass, IMHO, the speaker with the "bump" will be the speaker getting it wrong. Just my opinion.
  
  

  ---

  • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? alan 08:43:52 06/10/00 (3)
    In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by kevin on June 10, 2000 at 06:54:55:

    I'd be curious. How many people out there use a subwoof with their maggies. I currently don't, but have thought about it from time to time as long as I used a good filter. I would love to hear what kinds of setups people are using their maggies in.
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Ned 12:53:58 06/11/00 (1)
      In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by alan on June 10, 2000 at 08:43:52:

      Your question about subs is a valid one, IMHO, and one that I am wrestling with right now, also in connection with "bump" and, more specifically, with the bottom octave and filling out the lower end. This may be heresy, but after 7 years with my 1.5's, I would like a more solid lower end feel, one not so dependent on room interaction. And, this is for jazz, clasical, as well as for rock, house etc. I am not a jazz freak at all, but living in Manhattan, I hear a lot of live (acoustic and amplified) music, and I am starting to crave the bass fill-in. I think its mainly to fill-in that -3 db @40hz gap and also bring out the lower octave where the maggies trail off. The trick is to not impede the great natural maggie bass but to supplement it in the above areas, thereby havin the best of both worlds.
      I think the important criteria for the sub should be: for it to go low enough using a small woofer for speed and articulation and to minimize higher frequency output; have a low crossover, e.g., 30-35 hz to minimize the duplication of the maggie output; run the sub in parallel with the maggies, which are run full range, so the sub simply goes under the maggies and does not replace the maggie output; have a fairly steep slope for faster trail off; keep the volume low; and, for me, have a reasonable price. The REL's are the obvious choice. However, at $695 (street price), the new Sunfire Jr. true subwoofer, I think will do the job, providing volume is kept low. The sunfire has all the above characteristics (using a small 6.5 inch driver). I think I will buy one tomorrow and will let everyone know. Now, how bout others with their experience on subs?

      
      
      
      

      ---

      • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Scott R. 16:41:20 06/11/00 (0)
        In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Ned on June 11, 2000 at 12:53:58:

        
        Yes I have experience with the Sunfire subs. Lots of it. They
        are evil. Stay away. Although they're fine for Home theatre with
        most non-musical movies and such.
        
        

        ---
    • Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? Bob 10:09:56 06/10/00 (0)
      In Reply to: Re: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by alan on June 10, 2000 at 08:43:52:

      1.6QR and REL Strata III are an excellent match. I suspect even those requiring bump would be pleased.
      
      

      ---
• Do real instruments 'bump'? andy evans 02:44:23 06/10/00 (4)
  In Reply to: Maggie bass 'slam' (or lack thereof)? posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 00:34:06:

  I'm not convinced by any of this bump or slam stuff. I'm an ex-pro bass player. I've played double bass in orchestras, double bass through an amp for jazz and el-bass through an amp for rock. The acoustic bass is much closer to a planar speaker in the way it reproduces sound waves - it's a large area which vibrates slightly. It's probably no accident that I find double bass through planar speakers the most natural i've heard. Now we come to electric bass. This is ALREADY reproduced through a piston speaker in real life, so that's the sound we come to expect, and that's where the "bump and slam" comes in. Yep, it's good to dance to etc. So I think there's a straight choice - hear the natural instrument with all the nuances and overtones through planar speakers, or reproduce 'amplified bass' and get the effect of a piston going in and out. The confusion comes when Maggies are accused of "not having good bass". Their only sin is that they are not pistons. The sin of pistons is that they are not remotely like a real double bass.
  
  

  ---

  • Exactly DrM 07:31:53 06/10/00 (3)
    In Reply to: Do real instruments 'bump'? posted by andy evans on June 10, 2000 at 02:44:23:

    
    This is correct. The Maggie bass arguments can go on forever and ultimately its silly; if you like what cones do then buy a cone speaker and enjoy it. But if you want truly reproduced accurate acoustic bass then a Maggie is very hard to beat.
    
    Andrew sez ..

    > If you stand in front of a bass/typani drum, grand piano, or
    > even a good acoustic guitar, you will definitely *feel*
    > the sound waves on your skin and in your organs in addition
    > to hearing the notes.

    Interesting you should bring this up. I agree with you, but that I get this effect more with a Maggie then with cone speakers. I've spent a lot of time playing in orchestras and am very familiar with it. Cones seem to push it at you more, the effect is like they are pushing through your skin. Maggies immerse you in the sound field more, as happens in live music (acoustic that is).

    Like you said, if you want the pushy cone thing then just get a sub. But (IMHO) if you want true acoustic repro then just get the Maggie. Or planar really, 'stats of course do this also.

    -D
    
    

    ---

    • Re: Exactly Andrew 12:02:50 06/10/00 (2)
      In Reply to: Exactly posted by DrM on June 10, 2000 at 07:31:53:

      I can see how an acoustic bass could be well-reproduced by Maggies (similar wave launch etc.)... But what about other instruments? Most specifically, the grand piano. Both my mother, who auditioned the Maggie 3.6R's with me, and I are very familiar with pianos. When we listened to a piano recording (Emmanuel Ax playing Chopin) I normally use to audition equipment, the Maggies couldn't summon up the "presence" of the instrument we've gotten on other setups. We could hear every last bit (literally) of information of the hammers hitting the strings, but the effect couldn't convince us of the piano being *right there*.

      There's also the experience of the piano transmitting some vibrational energy through the ground and into your seat and bottom :) Maybe this is something cone speakers are also better able at doing.

      The Maggies could give the illusion that the piano was on a stage maybe 50' away, but not 10' away. Apart from "bass slam" issues, there was another part in the recording that wasn't too convincing--in one of the more complex passages in the Ballad, there's a lot of stuff going on in the upper midrange with the pedal down; in real life and on other equipment the notes "ring" convincingly--you can feel it in the room; it's an almost painful pleasureable sensation that exalts one's spirit (at least for me! =). I reiterate that this happens in real life also, i.e. on our Steinway at home. Maybe this is what those reviewers call "bloom"?

      For some reason it wasn't happening. I'd suspect the Mark Levinson gear over the Maggies, but...

      In any case, my mom and I concluded that Maggies are untouchable for classical music played in a concert hall, a less visceral experience. But for more intimate recordings that require some 'slam' (yeah, I know, there are connotations of crass amplified rock--I'm using the term also to describe the experience of being next to something like a grand piano), the Mark Levinson/Maggie 3.6R setup just couldn't deliver. Perhaps if the dealer had connected their VTL monoblocks or integrated a REL sub the story would be different, but in our situation, with our setup in that room, that's what we concluded with.

      My reference for audio remains the Sonus Faber Amati Homage driven by Cary CAD-1610SE monoblocks (55 watt SET's), sourced by a Wadia 27ix/transport. Now *that* insane system can do *everything* =)

      -Andrew
      
      

      ---

      • Re: Exactly andy evans 17:03:25 06/10/00 (1)
        In Reply to: Re: Exactly posted by Andrew on June 10, 2000 at 12:02:50:

        I remain unconvinced - I hear quite well what you are saying and I respect your knowledge of the grand piano. I was brought up with a Bechstein boudoir grand, maybe less slam there. But the bell-like tones you refer to are exactly what I get with my SMGa's, and to me the piano is uncannily 'in the room'. I strongly suspect the 50ft away vs 10ft away is being caused by the amp. Have you tried a few tube amps into the 3.6? Like the Cary you mention? I found that when I swithed out my 100w CJ Prem 4 tube amp and switched in my Leak Stereo 20 the music came forward about as much as you mention. I certainly find that perceived distance can be an amplifier thing.
        
        

        ---

        • Re: Exactly hans 08:05:35 06/13/00 (0)
          In Reply to: Re: Exactly posted by andy evans on June 10, 2000 at 17:03:25:

          I totally agree with the previous poster. I'm not that intimate with the sound of a grand piano in real life, other than in the concert hall. But then again wasn't the grand piano actually designed for concert halls?
          Nevertheless I feel that my 3.3's are more convincing then any other speakers I've heard in reproducing the lower registers of a concert piano. You can actually hear the resonating wood suspended in air for seconds after the notes were struck.
          In fact these observations apply to all acoustic instruments. As others noted, Maggies are less convincing in electrically amplified rock etc. simply because that music uses pistons and horns to come to life, an unnatural "effect" the Maggies obviously cannot recreate as well as a pistonic driver can.
          I think it's wrong to call this "slam". Try finding a recording that has strong pulsed low frequency information (like a concert hall bass drum), not reproduced first by a piston and then recorded. Otherwise a disc with musique concrete or sound effects (possibly even with a recording of a door slammed...) will convince you that the Maggies are better at reproducing natural "slam" than any sane dynamic systems out there, provided you feed them with enough current.

          It's less than ideal performance on electric rock is a small price to pay in my view and I wouldn't advise anyone to add a subwoofer to try and compensate for that. First, it probably won't integrate properly because of the difference in speed of the drivers. Second, it will kill the seamless coherence the Maggies are famous for.
          
          

          ---

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---