- Posted by Bob01605 on October 03, 2006 at 13:27:56
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:
- Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R - rico 09:49:43 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 13:27:56:
I like comment # 7 for the poorer among us.
- If or when you opt to go further, - saltyflies 09:34:21 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 13:27:56:
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.
Believe what your ears say - not hearsay.
- Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R - onemug 18:45:05 10/03/06
(2)
- In Reply to: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 13:27:56:
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.
- Toe in was the same as the 1.6's - Bob01605 23:04:42 10/03/06
(1)
- In Reply to: Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by onemug on October 3, 2006 at 18:45:05:
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
Bob
- My experiences were simular - Mike in NJ 14:26:24 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: Toe in was the same as the 1.6's posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 23:04:42:
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
- My experiences were simular - Mike in NJ 14:26:24 10/04/06
(0)
- Toe in was the same as the 1.6's - Bob01605 23:04:42 10/03/06
(1)
- Wow !! ... They look great in thier new home ... - Dr.Jazz 16:56:34 10/03/06
(5)
- In Reply to: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 13:27:56:
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
- Yeah, if you don't mind listening in a shoe box... - Ozzy 01:58:19 10/04/06
(3)
- In Reply to: Wow !! ... They look great in thier new home ... posted by Dr.Jazz on October 3, 2006 at 16:56:34:
....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.
Oz
- I agree too - fin1bxn@msn.com 07:24:19 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: Yeah, if you don't mind listening in a shoe box... posted by Ozzy on October 4, 2006 at 01:58:19:
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.
Next upgrade - new room......
- I agree to a point ... - Dr.Jazz 06:43:19 10/04/06
(1)
- In Reply to: Yeah, if you don't mind listening in a shoe box... posted by Ozzy on October 4, 2006 at 01:58:19:
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.
AL
- Re: I agree to a point ... - Ozzy 06:55:17 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: I agree to a point ... posted by Dr.Jazz on October 4, 2006 at 06:43:19:
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.
Oz
- Re: I agree to a point ... - Ozzy 06:55:17 10/04/06
(0)
- I agree too - fin1bxn@msn.com 07:24:19 10/04/06
(0)
- Re: Wow !! ... They look great in thier new home ... - Bob01605 23:10:57 10/03/06
(0)
- In Reply to: Wow !! ... They look great in thier new home ... posted by Dr.Jazz on October 3, 2006 at 16:56:34:
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".
Bob
- Yeah, if you don't mind listening in a shoe box... - Ozzy 01:58:19 10/04/06
(3)
- Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R - audioNeil 16:30:16 10/03/06
(3)
- In Reply to: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 13:27:56:
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 ... :)
- I sense no harshness with the Bryston 4B-SST - Bob01605 23:36:20 10/03/06
(1)
- In Reply to: Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by audioNeil on October 3, 2006 at 16:30:16:
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.Bob
- Re: I sense no harshness with the Bryston 4B-SST - audioNeil 17:34:26 10/04/06
(0)
- In Reply to: I sense no harshness with the Bryston 4B-SST posted by Bob01605 on October 3, 2006 at 23:36:20:
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).
- Re: I sense no harshness with the Bryston 4B-SST - audioNeil 17:34:26 10/04/06
(0)
- Mye stands came with the speaker. n.t. - CSF 16:42:04 10/03/06
(0)
- In Reply to: Re: My thoughts on my move from the Magnepan 1.6 QR to the 3.6R posted by audioNeil on October 3, 2006 at 16:30:16:
n.t.
- I sense no harshness with the Bryston 4B-SST - Bob01605 23:36:20 10/03/06
(1)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
You can not post to an archived thread.
[
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 ]