Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5

108.198.129.74

Posted on April 8, 2014 at 20:06:10
Wilder_m
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Central ind
Joined: June 12, 2012
I want to move up from my smga's. I have B&K per and St 2140 amp. There are 3 choices locally all in the same price range. ML sequel, Maggie1.6 and Maggie 2.5 with 2 yr old ribbons and regle. My problem is I cannot hear them together to compare. Anyone had a chance to hear these in the same environment or owned these?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 8, 2014 at 21:49:53
TitaniumTroy
Audiophile

Posts: 622
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
Joined: October 14, 2006
I have heard the 1.6 which are very good, but not the 2.5. However as a 3.6 owner and previous owner of MGIIIA's the True Ribbon Tweeter is a deal breaker between Maggies.

I have not heard that model of ML but did hear the Montis ,excellent speaker. Would love to see a shoot out between Maggies and the higher end ML.

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 8, 2014 at 23:46:26
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
I never sat with all 3 in the same system, but they are so different from each other, the rest of the system is hardly an issue if it is competent.

First the good news is the detail from the ML Sequel is great and the bass dynamics very good. They image exceptionally and are very revealing. Downside is that the woofer and panel sound very much like different speakers. If this lack of coherence is something that you would be bothered by then it is not your sort of speaker. The second issue is the analytical nature of the panel's sound - it works best with rich sounding amps like large tube amps. They are a difficult load for the amplifier and the BKs nice as they are will be hard pressed to deal with the impedance swings. The ESL panels get muted or muffled as they age and have to be replaced - not very expensive but something to consider if the speakers are old or have been in a difficult environment (think damp). They don't play very loud but they play at low volumes very well. Far better than the Maggies you are considering.

Between the 1.6 and the 2.5 there is no competition, the 2.5 with its ribbon is just plain better.

The 2.5R is not quite as resolving as the ML and does not have the same dynamic punch in the bass, but the bass is tighter and integrates well with the mids and even the ribbon. However, detail retrieval is not quite as good as the ML Sequel. Imaging is as good once you have the placement worked out, but often the placement for best imaging is either in the middle of the room by the sidewalls or somewhere where the bass is misshapen so you need room treatments (by the front wall) or so far away from boundaries the deep bass disappears. Unless your room is small, you would want a pair of sealed subwoofers if you listen loudly. Though mids and highs can be played quite loudly, the bass bottoms out and compresses dynamics. The Maggie 2.5R is an easy load for the B&Ks but they will run out of steam if you play loudly. You will likely need to step up the ladder to get enough power for them. A high current 250+ W/ch (meaning does 500 W/Ch at 4 ohms or better) is what is called for - unless the room is small. Among the cheaper ones on the market the Adcom 5800/5802 and older 565 are good choices.

If you use subwoofers then you can easily drive the maggies with the B&K amps you have, as the main power drain is in the maggie's inefficient bass reproduction.

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 9, 2014 at 08:22:58
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since:
June 17, 2003
my two cents: as others have mentioned the true ribbon is the deal breaker-but not without caveats: sure it's a step up but it comes with a price. A quick analogy would be akin to adding regular gas to a Ferrari. Sure, she'll run, but not to her fullest capacity. Ditto for the TRT, what you pour into her is what you'll get out of her.

IMO the 1.6 with it's bullet-proof quasi ribbon is far more 'forgiving' at what you throw at her and transition smoother. I'd go as far to say they perform much like a full range speaker although we all know they're two-way.

In the final analysis I'd jump on the 2's only after knowing I'd consider upgrading in the future but cognizant to it's age and somewhat delicate tweeter.









 

1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 9, 2014 at 17:20:28
MWE
Audiophile

Posts: 2196
Location: Burlington, NC
Joined: June 8, 2000
Though I've not heard a pair, I have to wonder whether with the 2.5/2.6R's (being two-ways) there would be issues with integration, crossing over from a large panel to a delicate ribbon tweet at a relatively low frequency without a midrange in-between. Thoughts?

-Mark in NC


Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon

 

RE: 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 9, 2014 at 17:56:15
Green Lantern
Audiophile

Posts: 16952
Location: San Diego, Ca
Joined: November 12, 2002
Contributor
  Since:
June 17, 2003
Mart the mod would probably be a good person to answer since he owns a pair. I haven't heard the 2 series either but for the longest I heard they were Jim Winey's favorite. But on the other hand our local dealer who sold them back in the day once stated there were issues similar to what you describe.









 

RE: 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 9, 2014 at 18:48:48
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
The 2.5R integration is not that hard, but it does require an effort in placement. The ribbon is more robust and heavier than the 3.x ribbons and can play lower and is not quite as fast as the 3.x ribbons. So integration is not as difficult. Overcoming the distance from ribbon to the acoustic center of the midbass driver is a matter of proportion to the wavelength of the frequencies where they both have output. That is less of a problem since the frequencies are lower by most of an octave from those in the 3.x models.

When aimed correctly it is a great speaker.

 

2.5 ribbon, posted on April 9, 2014 at 18:56:33
MWE
Audiophile

Posts: 2196
Location: Burlington, NC
Joined: June 8, 2000
Thanks, interesting info. I didn't know that the ribbon differed from the 3 series.

Mark in NC
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 16, 2014 at 16:32:25
Wilder_m
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Central ind
Joined: June 12, 2012
Funny how things work. I was leaning towards the 1.6 and someone bought the pair before I could. I listened to the ML's again and was offered a nice discount. So I purchased them. I am happy so far but there are a few things I liked better with the Maggies.

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 17, 2014 at 06:19:58
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
What in particular did you prefer in the maggies and what did you like better about the MLs?

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 17, 2014 at 18:11:09
Wilder_m
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Central ind
Joined: June 12, 2012
I was unable to compare the 1.6 and ML under the same condition (room, equipment etc.). Here are my impressions. This may change with placement. I just placed the ML's where my smga's were.

Increased detail ML
More bass pressure ML
Lesser quality classic rock blues etc. is listenable ML
Does not have to be loud to sound good ML
Imaging even
Tighter bass 1.6
More realistic guitar and horn sound 1.6
Size and weight 1.6
No power cords 1.6

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 17, 2014 at 22:34:20
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
Largely as expected, but I did not remember brass being that much of an issue with the MLs. They lacked dynamics to swing a realistic big band brass section, but had decent enough renditions. Not quite as good as a 2.5 or 3.x, but I would not have guessed that even an SMG can outdo them in that regard.

 

RE: Maggie 1.6 vs 2.5 , posted on April 18, 2014 at 09:07:23
Wilder_m
Audiophile

Posts: 14
Location: Central ind
Joined: June 12, 2012
My comparison was to the 1.6 and the ML's. Both are much better than my old smga's

 

Page processed in 0.034 seconds.