Planar Speaker Asylum

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

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

Planar Speaker Asylum

800 W/ch for maggie 20.1

71.252.175.191

Hi all,

I haven't posted in a long time. I just managed to talk myself into an investment that I have been considering for a long time and want to share the results. I already had a single McIntosh MC402 running my Maggie 20.1's. I had gotten to this stage a few years ago while living in my old house. The old house had a large living area, but was a difficult space to get the best out of my Maggies. The new house I bought about 2 years ago had a much improved area for setting up my Maggies and the sound improved. The new space is large and in a loft area with a huge back area for the speakers to broadcast into. I notice an immediate improvement. I also did some other minor improvements such as removing the jumper pins and installing some wire jumpers in their place and also rolled the tubes in my McIntosh C220 pre to Gold Lions. Everything seemed to be so good, but I could never shake the feeling that my 400 w/ch into 4 ohms could be improved, but was not sure I believed the hype that more power would improve the sonic performance of what I believed was already very good. Everyone who heard my system was very blown away already.
I kept thinking of getting a second MC402 and running them in mono/parallel mode to get 800 w/ch into 4 ohms. I found a good deal from Ebay and bought 2nd MC402. I was nervous. This was a major investment. If it was not better I was going to feel kind of punked into having bought this amp. I want to report that the improvement was huge! I now have tremendous base and slam! Every aspect of the sound has improved. I cannot relate how amazing the results have been. It is like the dampers have been taken off of my speakers. Even well loved CDs sound like new to me. So for everyone saying that a sub 100W/ch will make your maggies sound great ... not so. It is true that major power makes a huge difference, at least for my 20.1s. It has been an eye opening experience. My wife is always my link to ground. She is skeptical of all the things I have done (and I love that about her), and even she has said she was amazed at the difference 2 amps made compared to one. Anyway, I no longer need a subwoofer. Tons of hi definition bass. Super mids and great coherence. It is such an eye opener.

Follow Ups:

RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - pictureguy 10:29:38 09/08/16 (0)
I'm running a pair of Parasound A23, the baby brother of the A21 on my panels. One per speaker.
Nice and better than the 500 a side 'D' amp they replaced. New is 400 (or 450) a speaker divided by the crossover. Given the dynamics of the situation, I think the LESSER power of the Parasounds actually sounds terrific with better headroom and slam.
Too much is never enough
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - steven d 15:44:15 09/07/16 (1)
I, too, experienced the benefits of extra current by running two stereo amps in parallel-mono mode; though they were 'lesser' amps.

These were Crown Com-Tech 210. I was previously running them as "mono blocks", but using only one channel of each amp per speaker as I figured having a full power supply available for one speaker was better then having one power supply for two speakers. The Com-Techs did well at conversational levels but struggled to offer body or punched during proper listening sessions. This was until I found out about this parallel-mono mode...

Flipped the switch and immediately felt that the amps had better control of the 2.5s, and gone was the slightly bright and shrilly sound from the ribbon. I'd still be using both as they were up until now and possibly the future if one had not given up on me.

I've moved on to the MC2 Audio MC750 which can put down 625/1075/1325 into 8/4/2 Ohms. I know now the importance of headroom.
- RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - Satie 21:06:08 09/07/16 (0)
  Should have gone with a Macro Tech amp...I use a 5002 for the bass panels.
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - grantv 14:22:09 09/07/16 (0)
My 3.6's are bi-amped with 800w/ch into 8 ohms. One of the biggest improvements I've made, the 20 series would be even more so.
RE: Headroom is huge... - BigguyinATL 13:48:06 08/31/16 (1)
3 extra 3dB power is a good 6dB on voltage swing and I'm sure the MC402's are a little conservative. Like my MC352 you don't have to worry about clipping with the power guard circuit alway active. As other have stated - biamping is way to go to gain extra headroom and bypass some passive crossover components that are nonlinear in behavior.

"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
- RE: Headroom is huge... - Green Lantern 09:00:32 09/01/16 (0)
  Agree, my first encounter with 20.1s was at the dealer in our town. the room was approx. 20x30' with treated walls. They were powered by a stack of MLs and driven by ML transports and DAC. The speaker cables were bigger than my water hose and probably had the same amount of juice in em'! The results were mesmerizing, space and time didn't matter, just the great music coming from that 1/3 of the room. When I heard a tap of a cymbal hover in mid air center I about collapsed.
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - timm 17:34:48 08/30/16 (0)
So has anyone heard bi-amped 20.1s and 20.7s? I found the 20.7 bass and dynamics very nice
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - RickeyM 07:58:28 08/30/16 (0)
Dang-it, just when I get a nice gutsy amp that puts out 400+ W.P.C. (not a MC402), I read this post extolling the benefits of big SS power. Knowing that the amp I have is easily bridgeable and my MG-2.5's will love the power, I will now lay awake at night until I can get another. Oh well, at least now I have a good reason to put in that second dedicated line I've been wanting.
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - Michael Samra 23:40:22 08/29/16 (2)
I used to have Magnepan Tympani 4As and now I have Martin Logan CLXs.
The Meggies are a resistive load that are very easy to drive and the Martin Logans although a bit more efficient,are harder to drive at all frequencies unless you have good quality equipment.
I biamp my CLXs where I run 130wpc to 200wpc of vacuum tubes on the panels from 100hz on up..Then I run the Descent subs with the built in amps which are 350w in each sub and it plays full and loud.
If you think about why people start wanting more power after a having 400 watts already,it doesn't make it any louder but it will make it a bit fuller but at the cost of clarity or definition many times. This is the reason I went to vacuum tubes because they have a full and rich sonic flavor without sacrificing detail.If you could try a Mac Mc275 tube amp on your speakers,I think you would be amazed.You can strap two of those as well and then use your 402s for the bass.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
- RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - dromney 09:21:44 09/04/16 (1)
  So I don't understand your comment that having more power would cost in clarity or definition. My experience is exactly the opposite of that. Especially with dedicated mono amps per channel. My clarity and definition improved along with a big improvement in staging and bass.
  - RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - Satie 20:43:02 09/04/16 (0)
    I am gussing that he meant that getting a higher power amp in the same product line as a lower powered one usually entails a power vs. refinement tradeoff so he suggests leaving the more refined lower power amp doing top end duties while playing the low end with a separate amp instead.
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - neolith 19:34:53 08/28/16 (1)
As long as you have two matched amps, consider going to active biamping - you will be absolutely amazed at the improvement. For the 20.1 a 3rd order LP filter at 100-120 hz and a 1st order HP filter at 300 hz will be pretty close to the OEM.

I married the perfect woman. The downside is everything that goes wrong is my fault.
- RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - macmagman 22:43:05 08/28/16 (0)
  When I first got my 20.1's I was running a McIntosh MC352, It went into thermal shutdown on a consistent basis. Being a Mac fan for over 30 years I has hesitant to switch amp brands. My first change was a pair of Bryston 7bst's, big difference, but I noticed that I had lost that warm McIntosh sound so I switched my C42 pre amp to the C2200 tube pre, nice warm sound back again. Then I went to a Sanders Magtech, big difference again. Then I added a second Sanders amp, an ESL, and actively bi-amped with a Marchand XM44, then I experienced a HUGE difference, Previously I had always had the felling that there was another level but with the final move I honestly feel that I have reached the final plateau.
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - russ69 19:32:20 08/28/16 (1)
Damn you! I have a Mac MC402 sitting around and I thought that at the end of the year I'd get some 20s and I'd be all set. Now you tell me I got to get another MC402. Do you know how much those things cost? Geeze, there goes the new car...
- RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - dromney 09:28:03 09/04/16 (0)
  Yeah, but its just a car! ;)
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - Green Lantern 08:13:43 08/28/16 (0)
Great deal; although I suspect the improvement is more along the lines of the Macs having more 'current' than wattage!
A couple of months ago I purchased a pair of Ghent audio Ice module mono block amps 500w(4 ohm), or 250w(8 ohm), via Balanced XLR & RCA inputs to ride the mid and tweeters on my MG20s. These replaced a pair of Emotiva UPA-1 (350w ea) which replaced a pair of VTL 100 tube monoblocks (100w).
The Ices sounded quite sweet during moderate volume but couldn't keep up with the supply and demand aspect during difficult musical passages at a much higher volume. This resulted in clipping; something I haven't heard in a while. Now I can't speak on other more complex Ice Modules on the market but these particular mods couldn't keep up. I removed them and placed the UPA-1s back in. I like to call the Emotiva's the "poor man's Krell" mainly because well, I'm poor, and due to their high current output and their ability to easily handle both the top and bottom (the bottoms are ran off a pair of XPAs which at times can have too much bass).

pic

Ghent audio

Edits: 08/28/16 08/28/16 08/28/16
RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - Satie 06:23:00 08/28/16 (12)
So you are running the amps bridged mono? Or are you biamping?

Yes, people keep doubting the efficacy of big power for maggies. But it is absolutely necessary to get their bass straightened out. And only amps with sufficient reserves to meet the bass load will have enough linear power left for the small midrange and treble detail riding on top of the bass to come out clearly.Welcome to a world with overhead room.
- RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - dromney 13:57:01 08/28/16 (11)
  I am running them in what McIntosh calls mono/parallel mode. 800 watts into 4 ohms, so one amp per speaker. I agree it is the current available that is making the difference.
  - RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - andyr 02:52:35 08/29/16 (10)
    I suggest you will get an additional increase in SQ from putting your 2 Macs back into stereo mode and replacing the external passive bass/mid XO with an active XO. Something like a Marchand, if you want an analogue XO ... but I would recommend a miniDSP 10x10Hd unit (which I have just bought to replace my 3-way analogue active XOs) as it gives you DSP to correct room-mode nodes as well as the bass LP/mid HP XO. It will allow you to go 3-way active in the future, if you decide you want to do this, and offers the luxury of having 4 different confg setups loaded that you can flip between, on the fly. :-))
    
    Regards,
    Andy
    - Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - Satie 16:40:02 08/29/16 (7)
      I think dromney will benefit from taking out the 20.1 speaker level crossover and replacing it with a line level XO, That would decrease the power loss on bass due to the crossover and may allow the use of a single mac channel for bass vs. the two of them bridged without a loss in bass control dynamics and tightness. Where the benefit would be is that the upper amp on the mid/tweeter would not see anywhere near as much stress without having to drive the bass, so would have better clarity and imaging.
      
      I am not going to suggest the use of a DSP XO universally. If you are not doing high rez digital and vinyl then the DSP is fine. If you are sensitive to the kind of timing and phase issues that an AD/DA loop introduces even at 24.96 then you will want to stick with analog crossovers. I am one of those that are bothered by AD/DA loops. Before committing to a DSP you need to find out if you are one of the people who would be negatively affected in this way.
      
      I am also bothered by high order crossovers, and have gone to extremes to get rid of them since they introduce some of the same time domain and phase issues that bother me with digital. The higher order XOs in the pre .7 series maggies were a bother for me so I eventually took out the high order XO when I had the Neo8 midrange installed and tried it out without a crossover - just playing on its own full range. I now use it either with a standard linear phase/1st order XO or just use it with a high pass an octave below its acoustic rolloff so that it has virtually no phase through its entire output range. It does not have a LP and the tweeter is phased in with a 1st order HP in the top octave as in the ET LFT8 and some Apogee models. With that you have a rather clear window to hear what AD DA loops take away. And so far I have not had good enough results even with more recent 24/192 AD DA which also revealed themselves on the Focal Nova Utopia. I disliked the straight AD DA so much that I could not assess the benefit of the DSP that is the point of the processor. Whatever good it could do was swamped by the initial AD DA performance. .
      - RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - dromney 09:26:44 09/04/16 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by Satie on August 29, 2016 at 16:40:02
        
        I am a little curious about bi-amping, which would require active cross-overs. I am not that interested in a digital cross-over, simply because I don't want to transition again analog to digital to analog and the artifacts that come along with that. Bi-amping may or may not improve the sound I currently have. That is one nice thing about have this much power available so that the amps are not stressed even when putting out a lot of bass. The upper range stays very clear. I am pretty happy with the factory cross-over (which I have heard is better than the 20.7s). However, I would like to hear it for myself.
        
        RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - Satie 20:30:04 09/04/16 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by dromney on September 04, 2016 at 09:26:44
        
        I don't think you need to work hard on the subject of biamping. So far I have found one person to have preferred single amping a maggie. But then he hand tweaked the passive crossover to taste over years. The execution is easy enough once you have the amps at hand. As for the line level XO choices you can get
        1. an AR crossover designed for maggies and give them the model and send it in for a checkup and to put in the appropriate components for your model's XO It has an active low pass for bass and a passive high pass for mid/tweeter
        2. use a First Watt B4 crossover for max flexibility in choosing both freq and slope,
        3. Have Marchand build you an XM 44 with the right crossover to emulate the OEM crossover
        4. Do a DIY passive high pass and active 3rd order low pass - or just get a used 3rd order vintage 3rd order XO from Ashly Furman Pioneer Sony Yamaha Accuphase etc.
        5. If your budget reaches that far the Pass XVR1 crossover will do an excellent job.
        
        RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - dromney 20:30:37 09/05/16 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by Satie on September 04, 2016 at 20:30:04
        
        Satie, I am going to look into it. When bi-amping I would use one amp for the bass (one channel for each speaker) and one amp for the mid and highs, correct? It seems that for a single amp dedicated to a channel I would have the majority of the 800W available to support the bass panels on each speaker, and if I bi-amped, I would then be limiting myself to 400W/speaker bass panel? I must not be understanding something about how to apply this, as this seems to actually limit head room.
        
        RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - Satie 21:10:40 09/05/16 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by dromney on September 05, 2016 at 20:30:37
        
        That is entirely correct. However, you should have the top amp loafing in its best performance where you will find more clarity than you imagined possible. While the bass amp will be often driven to the end of its tether and will be producing some distortion - but the bass panels produce quite a bit of it themselves at the bottom octave - 25-30% at high volume 30-40 hz has been measured. So you don't really care about the bass amp being stretched. The main downside is that it might sag on very low freq loud material and provide woolly bass. in which case you can easily flip the extra Mac for a higher output bass amp - where you don't care about its refinement in the midrange etc..The large Emotiva, XPA and quite a few Pro Audio and Audiophile high power pieces can fill the slot. I use a fan cooled linear Crown 5002VZ for my bass panels. I have clipped everything else including a parallel strapped Classe DR 9 (rated 400W but measured 600), Bryston 4B NRB bridged and stereo.
        
        RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - macmagman 12:11:43 09/04/16 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by dromney on September 04, 2016 at 09:26:44
        
        With all the progression I took with my system I can tell you that active bi-amping made the most difference. I stayed analog using a Marchand XM44. I will say I'm not an engineering expert like a lot of you here are (and I want to say thanks for all of your expertise) I don't measure any thing or make any sort of measurements. I solely fly by the seat of my ears.
        
        With that said I had friends of friends over that were audio experts one of wich had a 200K + system with Magico speakers and he was totally in awe.
        
        RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps - Davey 16:34:36 09/04/16 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by macmagman on September 04, 2016 at 12:11:43
        
        Yep.
        
        I am surprised after all these years there is still so much trepidation regarding bi-amping setups. It's an inherently superior scheme with no down-side and considerable up-side. DSP schemes have a different set of trade-offs than analog schemes, but either is superior to the alternative.
        
        Audiophiles are some of the most hard-headed and resistant to traditional paradigm thinking people I've ever seen. :)
        Line-level crossover systems with direct-connected bandwidth-limited power amplifier setups have been used for decades. The folks in the pro-audio world have understood the benefits for decades as well.
        
        Oh well.
        
        Dave.
      - You are right - leave DSP out, if you want ultimate fidelity! nt - RealStereo 10:40:35 08/30/16 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Biamping for maggie 20.1 with two macs vs bridged amps posted by Satie on August 29, 2016 at 16:40:02
        
        nt
    - RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 - neolith 06:42:12 08/29/16 (1)
      Andy,
      I seem to remember reading some criticism of the mini-DSP when they first came out in that they were noisy. I assume that you have not had this problem - would you care to comment?
      
      I married the perfect woman. The downside is everything that goes wrong is my fault.
      - RE: miniDSP "noisy"? - andyr 15:34:01 08/29/16 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: 800 W/ch for maggie 20.1 posted by neolith on August 29, 2016 at 06:42:12
        
        Hi Neo,
        
        "Noise" from a miniDSP can be either:
        
        #1: hiss from the speakers ... like 'tube rush', say.
        
        #2. or you get an almighty thump through the speakers if you turn it on or off ... and your power amps are on.
        
        I certainly have absolutely none of #1. In fact, I find it hard to make out any degradation from my vinyl now going through a digital device.
        
        I also don't get #2 with my miniDSP 10x10Hd - although earlier miniDSP 2x4 units were notorious for making a thump when they were turned on or off - so you had to be careful to switch off your power amps first. (They have now fixed this problem.)
        
        Regards,
        Andy

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

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