Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
173.32.146.28
I usually only focus on one hobby at a time, and audiophile listening has taken a back seat for a while.
I took out some favorite LPs and DADs today, and tried them out with my venerable Maggie 3.6/Rs.
What I heard explained why I haven't been listening to much music lately. The top to bottom sound wasn't balanced. There wasn't enough bass energy to balance the brightness of the speakers. The panels didn't integrate well. The imaging was mushy. I found myself wanting to turn up the volume to get more detail, until of course certain harsh sounds forced me to turn it down.
There is a lot to love about the speakers. There is a realism to certain instruments like saxophone, that often sounds honky on dynamic speakers. There is a definite clarity to the sound, and an immersive (if mushy) soundstage.
On the best recordings, I enjoy the sound. On anything else, it is painful for long-term listening. I just don't enjoy 90% of my music collection on these speakers. Sure, vinyl isn't as harsh, but it has its own distortions that, at least with my current setup, are noticeable in some voices.
I'm thinking that I bought the wrong speaker. I was originally thinking of a B&W 805 (eventually with subwoofer), and enjoyed it's sound. Sure, it had some coloration, but it didn't make me cringe or hate most of my recordings.
I have a couple of choices. I can look at the 3.7s, and see if they fix my listening woes, or perhaps I should go back to the B&W 800 series (like the 803D) and see if I enjoy the music more.
Who has switched to a dynamic speaker without regretting it?
Follow Ups:
On the best recordings, I enjoy the sound.
How's the imaging on those best recordings?
I just went from 1.7s to Merlin TSM Mxe w/ Master RC, and I am thrilled!
Some threads bring out the best in us, this one has certainly done that. Youve had some great responses leaving not much for me to add. However, I had the same experience you have with th 3.6s. I started with mg 12s then 1.6s then modded 1.6s (which were great and I miss them) then 10 out of 10 3.6s - When I got to the 3.6s I expected to be really happy and instead I thought they were bright and lacked life and passion. I judge my listening experience by my reaction. If I want to listen to more music thats good, if I want to go back to other songs and see how they sound thats good. With the 3.6s I didnt feel that way at all. I then moved to Acoustat which to this day I swear is the best speaker on the planet no matter what equipment is paired with it or what the room acoustics you may have. For my media room they are epic. Im moving to a smaller house with no media room so in anticipation of the move I started looking at smaller box speakers. I found some B&W DM1600 speakers that were in perfect condition for next to nothing. Having no experience with B&W I thought why not. Got them home and absolutely love them. Then I went on a literal rampage buying up all the B&Ws I could find. I found that I really loved listening to music again, to the point that I have pandora (YA DIRECT TV!) all day
My point is this, I personally think Maggies are magnificent. However, where they come up short the B&W come up in spades yet arent as good as Maggies at what Maggies are great at. Maggies DONT go low and are really tough to crossover with subs. B&Ws dont have the imaging or clarity of Maggies. I found that Acoustats are the best B&Ws are next best and modded 1.6s are next best. Thats me. Id recommend dump the 3.6s and get some Acoustat Monitor 4s with the tube amps. If you cant find any send me a message and Ill point you in the right direction.
hope that helps
Big Maggies go low, the 20.1's are spec'd to 25 Hz.
I think you are hitting on the limits of the stock crossover. But besides this, there is something wrong going on. The 3.6 should not sound as extreme in its upper midrange and mushy in soundstaging as you are describing.
If you don't have any measurement equipment, go get at least a digital rat shack SPL meter and a test CD with 1/3 octave warbles. If you are willing to put in some effort and a few bucks, get a Dayton calibrated mic, and REW software from Home Theater Shack.com. Measure the FR you are getting now, and try different toe in angles to see what effect it has on FR. This will also point out to you if there is a particular frequency highlighted.
As a first off guess, I would venture that something is wrong with your midrange crossover - namely the low pass for the midrange. The 3.x midranges are significantly more sensitive than the other drivers, which is why they are filtered off early, if one of the speaker's mid shunt capacitors is broken or disconnected/or out of spec, then you will have an overly prominent upper midrange on one speaker, if not both - in the case of off spec parts. That would account for the harshness and mushy soundstaging. One test is to listen to a mono recording of a female vocalist or violin, and a mono recording of a large orchestral piece. If one speaker pulls the center mono image in one direction on particular notes or instruments, then you do have a problem with the XO, if not, then it is elsewhere.
If the speaker is older than 10 years then there may be some delamination, which may come off as upper midrange harshness if it is in the midrange drivers.
There may be an issue of interference from treatments if they were set up for box speakers.
How far are the speakers pulled into the room and what kind of treatments and furniture do you have on the walls behind the speakers and on the side walls? What is the toe in angle? Are the tweeters in or out?
I'm pretty sure that the sound has never degraded at any time, so I don't think the crossovers have gone bad.
I may be overemphasizing the shortcomings, because of the overall feeling I have -- that I can't enjoy music as well as I should.
I will be going out this week to listen to B&W 802 Diamond, and hopefully Maggie 3.7s. I have a ML dealer near me as well (though I've never really liked Martin Logan). I will try to get to the bottom of things.
I will probably sell my vinyl rig for money for the new speakers, if I go for the 802Di . I can like vinyl, and I have lots of records, but its shortcomings bother me (extreme sensitivity of vocal placement and forwardness to VTA, slight rolled-off high, and inconsistent quality). I want to go to a high-res music server, with a decent DAC.
The issue that makes me suspect the health of the speaker is the lack of imaging. In all my experiences with maggies, I have never had anything less than great soundstage width and good image specificity with a well setup 3.x. Image depth is largely a function of how far off the front wall you are willing to pull the speakers. This aspect tends to improve as you pull them into the room.
You may benefit from a "Rooze" arrangement, where you align the speakers edgewise at 8-10' apart with the direct sound hitting the sidewalls. You just need to aim it at a symmetrical portion of blank sidewall.
That arrangement is far less intense at the top frequencies and provides a more natural soundstage.
I don't know how handy you are, but there is much left on the table in the stock speaker that you can obtain with XO upgrades and bi or tri-amping. In particular, you would probably enjoy the option of lifting the bass output relative to the top end when biamping.
Your Benz cartridge is a rather laid back cartridge, so I am not sure you can do much better with an MC cartridge, they tend to be very bright, with the Benz being less so. I would suggest you try an older MM cartridge. Something like a Technics 205MkII with an original or JICO SAS stylus. I had one of those and have the integrated headshell Mk III and MkIV. The MkII is a warm but very detailed cartridge with very good imaging and terrifically powerful bass. Another option is the AT 15S with the shibata stylus, and its "bigger" brothers, I had one of those, it is very very good, and both these cartridges outdo nearly all MCs under $2k by quite a distance. Particularly in the bass and in dynamic impact, but also in natural tone - without the MC's high end tizz. They are also a little less sensitive to VTA.
Satie, I am hoping that it may turn out to be just a challenging positioning situation....hopefully not insurmountable. Like you, I expect Maggies imaging to be so enchanting as to drag us in and carry the day most of the time. Many of us are willing to pardon some Maggie limitations for the sake of their great strengths. Imaging and detail are foremost among them, when things fall in place.
I've heard badly-imaging and tonally-challenged 3.6s while silently thinking "if they only could rearrange this room and let them shine through!". I am sure that many of us have had a similar frustration with regard to some Maggies positioning issues. Sometimes it can't be helped, but at least Neil is open to finding options.
Some people do, quite validly, seek a different combination of strengths in their system. Which may be Neil's case, though I am not so sure.
So, it is great that you bring this up. One risk may be that whatever "lesser" imaging Neil may be getting now, he could dearly miss it later with other speakers. We don't know this. Yet, it would be a shame if it happened. The flip side is that if he finally gets the magical imaging, or something closer to it, he will not, I am pretty sure, want to lose it.
Which is why I think it would help to "see" the room in pictures or in a drawing. The collective experience may give him enough hints for him to figure out his proper 3.6 formula, if one is attainable.
'Tis true. If my only option were listening to my speakers with the fireplace behind them, their imaging would be sad indeed. Face the other way in the very same room, and they have a soundstage the size of Carnegie Hall.
Which being said, Maggies don't have the tightest lateral imaging owing to their offset drivers. Boxes have the same problem vertically. The lateral imaging problem doesn't bother me, because the imaging on most multitracked recordings is too pinpoint anyway, live music doesn't have that kind of pan-potted precision.
While there is a possibility that you can replace Maggies with better speakers, my question would be: at what cost? Yes, we've all heard what some of those ultra high end speakers can do, but really, when you compare the tens of thousands of dollars price tag with a few thousands that Maggies will set you back, is there a possibility for a meaningful comparison?
In my post below I mention three different "non maggie" planar options, and none of them are (or need be) "ultra high end" at "tens of thousands" dollars cost.
For example, my option one, full range electrostatics. The SoundLab Millennium 3XP is listed at a little over $13K, the Audiostatic MDi are 3K euro. Certainly not tens of thousands of dollars/euros or whatever and I am sure that a full range electrostat will be more coherent than a three way planar or whatever!
For example, my option two, hybrid electrostat, the Sanders top of the range model 10 is also a around $13K and it includes and amplifier and crossover.
For an example of my option three, an alternative ribbon, the SoulSonic Impact is just under 7K euro.
Now there are two additional aspects that I did not previously mention.
Eye-pleasingness/WAF. There are maggie planar alternatives that are more visually attractive, at least to these eyes!, I would offer the Martin Logans and the SoulSonic Impact as examples of this.
The second aspect that I did not mention in my previous post is that of second hand speakers. For example, the Acoustats. My 20 year old spectra 22s stack up amazingly well against the new Quads, not to mention the maggies which I carefully listened to recently.
It comes down to this, if our fellow inmate wants to look at planars beyond maggies let him, and he can report back to us his findings! Reality is that different sorts of planars appeal to different persons, and that's great, it would be a pretty sad world if we all had identical tastes!
I really do hope that our fellow inmate will make his decision and report back to us.
That's why we are here - to hear other people's opinions!
Regards
Bruce
While you may be disposed to leave the maggie fold I think that if you leave the planar fold you will most likely be headed for disappointment!
As I see it there are three real Planar alternatives.
Firstly, there are the full range electrostatics (that's me, I am super biased, so apart from a little gentle urging, I won't say much more!).
Secondly, there are the electrostatic hybrids, the Martin Logans most readily come to mind, but why not consider the Sanders Sound? I think that they have a lot to offer. Why not send Roger Sanders an email and sound him out? He seems to be a really well respected, genuine and knowledgeable sort of person who loves his planars.
Thirdly, why not consider some other ribbon planar? Let me suggest a look at the SoulSonics? I think that if I was considering a ribbon planar I would take them very seriously. There was a big discussion about them recently over on the other planar forum? The owner of SoulSonic seems to be a helpful Roger Sanders sort of person, why not contact him if this direction appeals?
I see it like this.
We are like friends here.
Friends help each other out.
I am pretty certain that after having lived with planars, anything else will leave you flat.
If you find me to be biased, I openly admit it!!!
Don't leave, just look wider afield!
Hope this helps.
Bruce
You can do a search on this forum on either or both words and find people that have been plagued by this problem. It can be overcome. I had the problem with the 1.5's I used to use. I am about 98% convinced it is caused by spike in the frequency response on one or more specific tones. The difficult part is finding the culprit.There are a few possibilities. What you have to find is what might be skewing the frequecy response. Room interaction can play into it by means of additive or subtractive interferance. Another factor could be severe enough of an impedance mismatch between upstream components. That said I might suspect that either of those would only tend to make the real problem worse. For reasons unknown to me the pattern seems to point to an undampened resonance inflicted on the Magnepan's involved. Probably in the mid-range or lower treble region. I have read some people finding some help with something as simple as changing their speaker cable to something very low impedance like anti-cables speaker wire or going to a different amplifier. I have my suspicions but nothing more than anecdotal evidence to support it. So I'll skip the pet theory that I have.
What you might do is download a test disc you can use to do some frequecy sweeps through your speakers. Michael "Bink" Knowles has a downloadable 'Bink audio test CD' that could be helpful...
Bink Audio test CD - Be sure to read the instructions for use as there are a couple of included wave files that can cause damage if you are not aware and careful.
Also, Marchand has a free computer based function generator that can be used for this...
These are just a couple of tools to try to find what the problem might be. There are also other tools like these that can be found with the aid of Google that might prove more useful for this purpose. I think you will find that there is a specific frequency or two that will sound either distorted or way more intense than the others. I also think that the offending tones are going to be at the crossover points between the drivers. Bass to mids and/or mid to ribbon. I believe you can biamp the 3.6 with the existing crossover. So if you have another amplifier you can use that to electricly isolate the bass from the mid/treble. The speaker instructions will show how to do this. If this helps to point to the problem please let us know. There are some options that can be explored to overcome that. Those 3.6's should not have have that harsh quality that is bothering you. When you get the response right you will have a hard time finding a disc that doesn't sound just about right. I can bear witness.
Edits: 02/20/12 02/20/12
I know you primarily listen to vinyl but get a sense that listening to CDs is the biggest problem for you and I have to say that your digital front-end is not up to the rest of your system. Have you thought of getting a DAC? Even being a vinyl-fan, I think that is a worthwhile investment with even a $500-600 unit reducing the problems you refer to.
then it might take you a while to get sound you like listening to, with your 3.6s. Because I have, basically, an earlier-but-improved version of 3.6s and I can assure you, they make me want to listen to them all day ... absolutely no 'painful listening' or cringe here.
You say "The imaging was mushy." ... I don't have that problem. Do you have the 3.6s positioned in the room optimally? If you think so, then your room has a problem.
You also said "The panels didn't integrate well." The best recording I have for showing how well drivers are integrated is RCA RDCE-4, Beethoven's "Appassionata" plyed by a Japanese lady pianist. There are amazing scale runs in this sonata; when you listen to it on my 3-way Maggies, you can't tell when one driver hands over to the next - ie. it is integrated! :-))
Are you using the Al Sekela "choke tweak" on your ribbons? Do you have the attenuation resistor in place? (Which will bring down the highs, so the bass energy is sufficient.)
BTW, I don't think swapping your 3.6s for 3.7s will solve your problems.
Regards,
Andy
Andy, your showing up is just as timely as can be! My next suggestion is that he should look at what you did to reinforce the Frankies' frame. If that bass doesn't pep up along with the extra clarity, they will be the first Lazarus Maggies. Only a miracle will wake them up!
In any event, the chokes are par for the course. So easy that he might as well start ordering now.
.
Wrapping up, dad. Damn, it's 4am!
Have fun!
.
Yup.
I've been thru that with different models of Maggies too...it's the room. You may be able to find a better position for them, but I bet you've tried that. I have a room that the 1.6's do not work in at all. Sound like crap. But the MG12's are wonderful...room is treated. Just one of them things.
I also have heard 3.6's at a dealer that sounded exactly like you describe. I was interested in buying a pair till I heard them in that setting. No way... ARC electronics. Good luck to you. Have you heard any Harbeths?
Over the years, I’ve been blessed with having Merlin’s, Sonus Faber Guarneri’s and Mag 3.6’s. Currently, I have MMG’s which fit/work best in my small 900 sg. ft. condo/apartment, I enjoy them immensely, and I’m not “audiophile” deprived.
In addition, (IMHO – “one reporters opinion”), when time permits, I’ll get these MMG’s “gunned” and call it a day, that’s how much I like the MMG’s even compared to my above mentioned previous speakers.
In closing, “I” feel the MMG’s/12’s are great “regardless of money” particularly for smaller rooms -condo/apartments. Only if I had a bigger space, would I then get/consider the 1.7/3.7s.
take a look at the martin logan ethos. i went from maggie 3.6 to the ethos and feel they are the best speaker i have ever had the pleasure of owning. planar mids, highs, imaging but coupled with dynamic speaker bass. easy to power bc of the built in subs and can dial in the bass to suit your room. great job martin logan on these masterpieces..plus gorgeous to look at as well. good listening to all..gsb
I'm not as refined as many here and my system is still evolving, but several of your concerns are exactly opposite to my experiences. I have MG-IIIas, which are generations before your speakers, and I'm not doing anything fancy. My set-up is clearly not optimal, but it does not exhibit all the symptoms you describe. If you resolve these problems you might still prefer B&W's, but it might not be too hard to get noticeable improvement with the Maggies.
"The imaging was mushy." On the IIIas, lateral imaging is laser-like and the soundstage is wide. Front-to-back the imaging is sharp but the soundstage is a little shallow (which I have come to realize after reading some of Wazoo’s posts) and projects partially forward of the speakers—the ultimate front-row seat. Like you I have a big flat surface between the Maggies, a little over a foot behind them, so the center reflection is compromised. The parameters with most effect were spacing, toe-in, and tweeters in vs. out. A few inches and a few degrees were the difference among hearing separate speakers; unfocused, mushy imaging; and imaging so real you can close your eyes and point to every voice or instrument, some of which are outside the speakers. What works for me is getting the speakers in front of the TV (about a foot was all I could do), tweeters in, roughly equilateral triangle, and enough toe-in to cross the tweeters about six inches in front of my head. Perhaps this arrangement gives the rear center reflection a chance to do something vs. blocking it entirely. Out of the box with a single amp lateral imaging was good, and dialed in quickly, biamping and improving the amps also made noticeable improvements.
“There wasn't enough bass energy to balance the brightness of the speakers.” I set up the speakers first for imaging. The amp, and then biamping, was the driver for bass. I have a big room with carpet and a suspended ceiling, and paneling without drywall behind it. The first amp was 500 WPC at 4 ohms. Biamping with two 500 W amps and a Pass line-level XO tightened the bottom end and gave it more strength. Going to a Sunfire (850 WPC at 4 ohms) took it to another level. Brightness was somewhat reduced by adding chokes to the tweeters—it turns out part of the “brightness” was harshness. But they can still be a little bright-sounding at high volumes, depending on the recording. And it bothers me when cymbals come out in front of the drum kit--probably a mikeing/mixing issue, but it's easily detected.
“I found myself wanting to turn up the volume to get more detail, until of course certain harsh sounds forced me to turn it down.” Chokes helped this a lot. It’s the easiest and cheapest thing you can do after positioning.
I was really surprised how much difference a few inches forward and in, and a few degrees in, made. Please forgive me if you’ve done all this. Maybe your room or other system components just don’t match well w/ 3.6s. But based on my experiences, the imaging, especially, should be spectacular with those speakers.
Good luck on making a choice that will satisfy your tastes!
Dave
--it's close enough for jazz...
I spent many years with Maggies, small and large, and was never quite content.. always tweaking, changing positioning, changing the room applications etc.
Mostly it was a battle against the tweeter that was uncomfortable for me. Granted, my ears are very sensitive to the treble.
I now, for the last 4 years, have a pair of Quad 57's. I can't imagine doing any tweaking to them, because they just sound so right, and easy to listen to on most of my recordings. I think that would probably be true of any of the Quad electrostatics.
Try to hear a pair of Quads.. they're really nice and have the openness, transparency and magic of the Maggies, but, for me, are easier to live with.
You stated below that you did a face off between the MMG & B&W N805 and that you liked the MMG's. This makes me think there is a synergy issue between your system and your 3.6's. Maybe your amp and/or pre just isn't matching up well with your speakers. This has little to do with quality or cost. Some amps/pre's just don't excel with some speakers. If possible, try out another pre & amp and see if the speakers sound the same.
Also don't discount proper positioning and room treatments either.
It's as simple as this - choose what works for you.
For the record, I moved from 3.6s to 3.7s and while I think the latter are quite a bit better, my impression of the 3.6 was much different from yours. Whether that difference can be explained by our different settings or our different preferences is impossible to say. One of the ways in which the 3.7 is an improvement is in the 'cut from a single cloth' level of driver integration - very ESL-like (but with better highs ;-), IMO.
Frankly, I think getting the bass satisfactory is a huge piece of the puzzle. Placing Maggies can be a frustrating compromise between the best bass performance and the best imaging. A recipe that I finally adopted which has paid huge dividends is to unload the bottom end from the Maggies entirely via an electronic crossover. That way, the Maggies can be located where they image best and a pair of proper bass engines can be located where they will serve you best - or, you could deploy a Swarm. The point is that separating the tasks can solve the placement dilemma. Furthermore, removing that energy from the panels results in a marked improvement in clarity. It also gives you better control over the balance of weight - unfortunately, I've found no way to avoid the need to vary my sub levels with different program material (for the most part, a few dB higher on older material - unless that deficiency was addressed in remastering). The upside to that activity, is that I can dial in the weight that's necessary to keep me connected to the music. There is another advantage to this approach - reduced power requirements, which can open the door to amplifier designs which operate on a different dollar/watt scale. I decided to give tubes a try - glad I did too.
I love my 3.7 based system. I think it sounds amazing. I even find The Mars Volta very enjoyable on that system - a first for Maggies. I also love another system of mine with an old pair of AR91s. They deliver music to my ears too. As Ozzy said, there is life after Maggie.
Maybe, the B&W sound is more to your liking. If so, that's the direction you should go. If you really prefer the presentation of the Maggies, then I'd suggest further effort to make them work - and I'm not implying that you haven't already tried much toward that end.
As wonderful as I think they are, I don't see swapping the 3.6s for 3.7s as a panacea. That won't buy you happiness if you are as disenchanted with the 3.6s as your post suggests. If you can't sit back and thoroughly enjoy long listening sessions, then your system simply isn't serving your needs. Ergo, a change is in order.
Pick your poison (it's all poison). Of course, there are other planars too.
I have owned modified 1.6s and stock 3.5s and I now enjoy a pair of GMA speakers. But I also found magic in Piegas. Although they are very good speakers, there is life after Maggie.
Oz
Don't worry about avoiding temptation. As you grow older, it will avoid you.
- Winston Churchill
audioNeil:
Magnepan's are without a doubt the most revealing speakers out there and this has both an up side and a down side. I too complained about how many of my CD's sounded, this will pass once your maggies' are properly placed in your room. Yes, it is a bitch to get them in their fen shui spots, but well worth it and those horrible sounding CD's and LP's will come sound better.
I agree that Magnepan's are bass shy and to get the most out of them, at least one sub is needed and two is preferred (by me). You will be amazed how a pair of well integrated subs can make the overall presentation come alive.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
At which model do the magnepan speakers become the most revealing speaker in the world?
I am familiar with the distant-row, quasi-ribbon lines. They are further from the music, and more macro-focus than any other cone speaker. Impossible to be considered the most revealing speaker type.
I don't think any Maggie is the most revealing speaker in the world. That would be stats, at least that I've heard. The Maggie true ribbons can give you that kind of detail in the highs, in fact, they're better in the highs than most stats. But stats have a better midrange. Maggies again have better lows than all but the hugest stats.
Caveat: detail is just one aspect of loudspeaker performance.
However, the quasi-ribbons are far more detailed than most cone speakers, not sure why you imply otherwise (if you did). It isn't easy or cheap to get rid of the sound bouncing around in that box. Also not sure what you mean by "further from the music" or "macro focus." Are you familiar with the sound of live acoustical music? It rarely has pinpoint focus, and it isn't usually close unless you have a guitar in your lap. Set up properly, I find that Maggies can be spookily realistic in a way that only a relatively few loudspeakers can be.
Wazoo and Josh make good points. Josh, my point was that Magnepans' are unforgiving, i.e., revealing, i haven't had any conventional speaker or otherwise, that give what they receive. On the good side, Magnepans' make good recordings sound better too.
Boy do I agree with Waz, that it can be a trade off without subs. With subs you truly can get the best out of the Magnepans', e.g., a wonderful full soundstage and imaging and with ample bass from the subs.
I also agree that if it doesn't feel right or suits the listeners ears, there is no use to force it and to follow your heart/ears.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Damn, I just spent the day listening to MMGs with the subwoofer off, like I do 90% of the time. These suckers don't want to understand that this is aberrant behavior. They are not supposed to do that!
Oh well, I'll raise them a foot or so from the floor. That'll teach them a lesson. : - ))
I've always preferred revealing speakers, even if they do reveal bad recordings for the Frankensteinish assemblages that they are. I suppose you could have a switch, a pair of forgiving mush-everything-together boxes for the badly-recorded favorites, and a pair of planars for the well-recorded stuff . . . but usually I just tune out the garbage, as long as it doesn't sound shrill I'm OK with it.
Josh:
I too prefer revealing speakers and as you have aptly noted several times in previous posts, there is a small degree of trade off.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Guess I'm getting repetitive in my old age. :-)
Guess I'm getting repetitive in my old age. :-)
Believe me, Josh, many things you say here bear repeating.
That's good, cause mostly I'm just repeating things I saw here!
Josh:
Or imparting pearls of wisdom!
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
Raisinets, more like . . .
Any true ribbon Magnepan in my opinion....
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
B&W i have had the N805s.M804s.M802s.M801s....the best sound i found out of the B&Ws is this 30 year old DM16 the are 75LB ea... There no info on this speaker... Now i have maggys an thay are only good for about 80% of the best sound you can get ...The ML ESL moves up to about 90%...Best B&W 85-90% can be vary rich sound...good tone.. goodluck
I have 3.6's too. that generation (with 1.6's) I think are too bright stock for many rooms (it's the wide-angle HF acoustic dispersion).I added a 1.5 ohm resistor in series with the choke in the tweeter attenuation port. Substantially better and can listen for a long time.
Then, to get good imaging use a mono recording. Move speakers and butt until the mono image is stable, centered, small, and doesn't move with volume or frequency. When you go back to stereo, it will sound nice.
Edits: 02/18/12
It would be a shame to go to trouble and expense of getting new speakers if a few tweaks should fix your problems. One thing Maggies should never be is unpleasant to listen to, if they are, something needs work, probably your room. You could try Magnepan's suggested test, try the 1 ohm resistor and if they're still too bright, add absorption in the room. That would also likely solidify the imaging, it will become vague if the room is too live (or the speakers are too far apart). If you want an even less dipolish image, you can put some absorption at the first reflection points at the front wall.
If you try that and the 3.6's still aren't to your liking, then I think you're the only one who can answer what you should replace them with. I mean, I can tell you that I wouldn't go from 3.6's to B&W's, but that's just me, planars sound more natural to me than most boxes on acoustical music. The 3.7's apparently address the low-level resolution and driver integration issues, and as J. Lindborg pointed out, there are other panels you might like, the Quads, the Kings, lots of great used stuff like Acoustats.
But I'd definitely try playing with resistors, position, and room treatment first, that's the only way you'll be able to tell whether you really need a change.
room acoustics. you have a much better chance of getting it "right" with line sources like magnepans. you just need to understand what's going on. the b&w's might sound a little more "balanced" at first, but you can't get away from the floor and ceiling reflections (carpet doesn't help).
getting maggies "right" can be a challenge, but often times it just works. i would take some measurements to see if you're getting an early reflection. you want at least 12ms before a reflection of 20% of level.
I would post on the Speaker Forum. Maggies are not for everyone and they are finicky about front end components. Also just because they work in some environments, they may not work for all. You will be listening in your home not mine :). Finally a lot people on this forum tweak their Maggies (probably a small minority of most owners) which suggests at least in part that some find something lacking although most tweakers are just looking for something more. Best of luck.
On the violin: "Heaven reward the man who first hit on the idea of sawing the innards of a cat with the tail of horse."
Have you tried any room treatments, diffusion and absorption really helped my system. If I did not have Maggies 3.6's I would probably go with a Klipsch Heritage speaker like the La Scalla or Cornwall.
It sounds like the 3.6 just isn't right for your room, your amplification, or your system in general. I wouldn't venture into the 3.7s until you figure out what it is about the 3.6s that don't work in your room/system.
Hard to judge without knowing your equipment or the characteristics of your room.
My room is not optimal. It is big enough, but it has a 60" flat-panel sticking out into the room, on a scissor mount (up the distance of the Maggies). This will effectively cut out the center reflection.
However, I've had this issue with the sound even before going with this HT setup.
I have B&W Nautilus SCM speakers for my HT side channels. I actually enjoy the sound out of them (of course the soundstage is messed), even though they don't have the detail of the Maggies.
There are 2 suggested action points in this post. I search-listed your posts in this forum to get an idea of what you've been through already. Clearly, you have done your homework. There's not much that we can add, if any, to what you have tried. The only thing is that, in the vast universe of variation, there could still be a hidden silly thing yet to be found.
Action point #1 is: DO get the B&W. I mean start looking for them. I suspect that the 805s, even the current model with the diamond tweeter, would be a mistake after owning 3.6s. I never got to like the 803D for the price, but that's me. The speaker for you is the 802D. Look it up 2nd hand for $9k or less and you'll get a bargain. It even does very good imaging. I do worry about the taxes if you have to import :( [BTW, there is a newer version but the distance to the original 802D does not warrant buying new ones.]
I know because I helped a friend select first the 805N years ago and later the 805D. He still owns both. He was never a planar guy and I did not even try to make him so. I told him to get the 802s but he and his wife found them "ugly-looking" then; so we found a good deal on the 805s. Later, his audio tastes improved...and suddenly the 802D were not so ugly after all. LOL!
Action point #2: While you find a bargain on the best speaker for you, let us take a collective final stab at possibilities not yet found. Life is like that. The detail that could make the real difference often escapes us when we are too close.
You would have to draw that room and list the hardware. You have already done so much that it is not like when a newbie comes in. This is well past the "general suggestions", it seems to me.
I have modded MMGs. They have a plasma TV in the middle. Their imaging is to-die-for. Their sound is so good that I can only go to 3.7s next. Then again, I am lucky that the room helped. I often listen to the 802D at my friend's home, and love their sound. Then I get home and listen to my MMG. Not even a hint of envy, ever.
In your case, however, whatever is holding back your 3.6s would likely affect 3.7s, as well. Like others here noted, it may even affect ANY good speaker. So, a group effort may help either way. If you are willing, many of us are, as always.
Thanks for the great reply!
Yes, I intend to look at the B&W 803D and 802D soon. I will also give the Maggie 3.7s a try at the dealer (maybe bring in my amp).
The funny thing is, the reason I got the Maggies was that I had borrowed MMGs from a friend, and did a face-off with the B&W N805 (not S). I liked both, but decided the MMGs had a naturalness of presentation that I liked on Jazz and instrumental.
Well, the 3.6s are much more "hi-fi" than the MMGs, with a better frequency response on both ends. But, they made it more difficult to enjoy anything but the best music.
Neil, a set of floor diagrams/pictures could trigger some fresh ideas.
For now, I'll focus on just one aspect. One that I am sure you have looked at before, the power amps. Again, rather than propose things, I am just hoping to trigger thoughts at your end. These below could work by themselves, or not.
- Is the current power amp still the 150 w/ch 8ohm? If so, the resulting 300/4ohm may still not be good enough for 3.6s at the bottom. I use 300/4ohm just for the bass panels in my MMGs. I do believe you tried peppier power amps but they did not help at the top?
- It may be that, like me, you like the MOSFET sound. The best imaging and bass that my MMGs have delivered was with a Parasound Halo A21. Smooth top, too. I helped my friend select it for his B&W 802D after many other options were too expensive and/or not too refined. Right balance, right price. MOSFET. The 400/4ohm is not a major jump from what you have now but I'd suggest you test one. Their current output is commendable. BTW, the 802D via passive preamp sound gorgeous, smooth and full-bodied. The Halo A21 makes them image like nothing else we have seen 2x their list price.
- You could bi-amp at line level (either active or PLLXO). I chose PLLXO because I could get away with it. In any event, passive or active, I need to stay in analog mode after the first D/A conversion. I listen to SACDs in DSD mode (no PCM conversion on these). This, my friend, tells me how good the music can be from this lowly system...and it "don't sound" THAT lowly. If I could get my hands on a pair of 3.6s, I would -- at the very least -- biamp on day 2...maybe sooner.
In any event, bi-amping (at line-level) would allow you to extract better sound. One option that I have tested here is using 2 Parasound MOSFET stereo amps (not Halos, earlier HCAs) and it works great. Using the Placette passive MAY be an issue or not; a good active xover could do the trick if the Placette allows it.
Lastly, an option with bi-amping that could work great for you is the Sanders Magtech for the bass panel along with your current amp for the top. The Magtech, fully driving 3.7s, is a powerful and delightfully refined beast. So, even without bi-amping, the 3.6s would be well served. However, I only heard this great beast with a hybrid tube pre-amp.
Of course, the hope is that you could borrow this stuff from either friends or dealers. Not easy, I know.
PS...If you still have that Denon monster...would you like to like find out how really good it can bi-amp while driving the top at line-level?
My system profile is up-to-date, so yes I'm using the 150W Linar (yes, with Mosfet output -- quite a sweet sound). They are very high current (600W into 2 Ohms), and I found their bass drive better than the Bryston 4BSST I had before.I no longer have that Denon 5900. It really didn't cut it driving Maggies ... though it could sound good on B&W -- go figure.
I listened to the 3.6s last night for 1.5 hours at (what I thought was) low volume last night. I have ringing in my ears this morning. The truth is, it wasn't low volume. It was smooth and open sounding, and I enjoyed the session, but I found I was missing so much information at this volume, that I would have liked to turn it up.
I want a speaker that I can listen to at moderate volumes, and never feel that I need to turn it up. You don't feel like you need to turn up a live performance, or turn up someone speaking right in front of you. Why should I feel that way with my speakers?
Edits: 02/22/12
I listened to the 3.6s last night for 1.5 hours at (what I thought was) low volume last night. I have ringing in my ears this morning. The truth is, it wasn't low volume. It was smooth and open sounding, and I enjoyed the session, but I found I was missing so much information at this volume, that I would have liked to turn it up.I want a speaker that I can listen to at moderate volumes, and never feel that I need to turn it up. You don't feel like you need to turn up a live performance, or turn up someone speaking right in front of you. Why should I feel that way with my speakers?
Funny, my experience is the exact opposite. Before I got my Maggies, I was always into this 'turn up the volume', which was driving my wife batty. It escalated to the point where I could only get to listen to music if I first send my wife out to do some shopping -- a very expensive hobby indeed:(
All that changed for the better the day I got Maggies. Their presentation is so huge and satisfying that I find it almost threatening at moderately loud levels. Thus I tend to tone it down, much to my wife's delight.
Seems like we may be talking about two different things here, or like we're talking pass each other. Strange...
Edits: 02/22/12
I listened to B&W 802 Diamond speakers today at the dealer. I have to say, I also wanted to turn those up, though when I did the sound became amazing. Perhaps the Maggies aren't so bad after all at low volumes ...
So, we are making a some progress. As you look into things, including possible replacements, we can keep trying to norrow down things that may "save" your 3.6s. You know, Satie made a couple of good points there. Thankfully, it does seem like we don't have to worry about the 3.6s being deteriorated.
Satie's other point, the ability to measure, has been key for me to be able to extract the most from my MMGs. Today's technology is so cheap and simple! Given the stakes and the costs of good audio hardware, it would be a great thing for you to be able to use it. Granted, it is no panacea, for it does not "fix" things...and it requires a "tweakster's mindset" that most people don't have the time for. Yet, the feedback it provided drove the reason why I would not trade my MMGs for the very same 802D I also love so much. (well, yes, I would trade to sell the 802D and then buy 3.7s : - ))
BTW, the 3.7s do have an improved ability to deliver more fullness at lower volumes when properly deployed and driven. If this were the only issue, things could turn out to be far easier. I gather it is not.
Anyway, I still have a nagging feeling that the Linar may be a right choice for the midrange/tweeter but not for all 3 drivers of the 3.6s. The more I read your descriptions of what bothers you, the more I remember my first experience with 3.6s. They did not impress me all that much, except for the tweeter, of course. That was with a 300w into 4ohm amp. Yet, not much more powerful amps in the same room, later, dispelled my concerns...go figure!
In any event, if we could at least trouble you for a good sketch or photos of the room, the ideas that may come could help you with the 3.6s or with any other speaker. This is just to munch on something that could turn out to be key.
Okay, I went to the dealer, and had a good session with the B&W 802Di . They were better than My Maggie 3.6s in most ways, but not all.I felt that male voice was just a touch "off", though female was awesome. I found the speakers were a touch lifeless in the midrange at low volumes (though not with the veiled dynamics I feel with the Maggie).
At moderate volumes, the B&W were awesome. Never bright, and actually more relaxed than the Maggie. The bass was far more powerful, although I have to watch out for room resonances more. The voicing was different with a bit more of a recessed soundstage. At times I liked the voicing better, and at times I just felt it was different.
Imaging wasn't perfect on all recordings, but on the better ones, it was very precise. I liked that when music got complex, it never muddied any of the instruments. Each one was solid. I find with the Maggie that complex music confuses the sound of everything.
I wasn't totally convinced that I needed to upgrade, given the increase in price -- but I did enjoy them immensely, on all types of music.
I came back home and listened to the Maggies again. It is funny, but with the Maggies I initially found the vocals more "real" than with B&W at lower volumes. But at higher volumes, I quickly became fatigued.
It is possible that the 3.7s, some room treatment, and the addition of a subwoofer may help. I currently have a room 24 ft wide by 16 feet deep. There is a 60" plasma TV 3.5 ft from the wall on a scissor mount, between the speakers (the speakers are 4 ft, so there should be no direct reflections). The room isn't live, but isn't dead either - in between. Carpet on concrete floor.
It's nice to hear that my Maggie holds up to the B&W, even if I do like the B&W better.
P.S. I heard the 803Di as well. The store said they sell 25x more 802Di than 803. I heard why. The 803 had a much more upfront soundstage, which gave it the feeling of clarity at low volume. But with higher volumes, the sound was fatiguing and flat, with no soundstage depth to speak of (actually it sounded a bit like what I am complaining about with the Maggie, but worse). I think B&W must have made the 803s just to allow stores to upsell to 802s ;)
Edits: 02/24/12 02/24/12
I have not heard the 802Di in a proper setting yet, nor with my own music. They were being set up at the dealer when I dropped by months ago. They ran a demo disc and I could tell that, at the very least, B&W had not damaged anything good. The 802D, however, I have heard in many different settings and with my own music. Overall, I would concur with your observations. (and yes, the 803D are not in the same league.)
At the end of the day, like I said earlier, I still lean towards my MMGs combination of charms while waiting for a chance to get 3.7s It does appear that you can still see possibility with your 3.6s or perhaps 3.7s.
I'll be back later, after I think about your statements and ways to propose a good rediscovery process for you. Of particular note is your perception of imaging. The 802D are really good at this, for a box. However, not even the cheapest Maggies, when well positioned, will do anything but far better.
BTW, the muddling of detail at high volumes I solved with frame reinforcement, and so have many here. However, I know that the 3.7s did not need it, even blasting away with a 900w/ch amp.
Neil:
Just a thought from a true Bottlehead, try a tube preamp to sweeten things up a bit. I don't mean color or this or that. Things just seem less strident and harsh with tubes. You might even be able to do a tube line stage with your passive preamp.
Jim
Music is the best thing you can do legally that doesn't require a medical prescription!
I tried a $3000 Blue Circle tube preamp in my system, and while it was dynamic, I didn't like the extra distortions compared to my Placette Passive Pre. I don't think it was a lot smoother, really. I don't think I've ever liked tube systems, overall (though I do like the tubed mics that Chesky uses in their recordings).
I've tried the resistors in the tweeters, and I don't like it. It doesn't fix the problem with the sound -- just makes the speakers duller and less exciting.
I think the problem with the sound is in the upper midrange, along with compressed dynamics, and a too weak bass. I know a sub can help the bass (I shortly had a Rel Stentor III, until it blew up for some reason).
I understand your comments on the 3.6's as I sold mine for the many of reasons you note. However, I continue to frequent this board because of the knowledge and similar thoughts as I have about audio. An additional challenge I had was I was always worried about frying another tweeter panel and was always watching my SPL meter to ensure I was not over driving them with my Classe CA-400. I bought a pair of Velodyne SPL 8's and got them close to integrating but never got the sound totally balanced.
I ended up moving on to Audio Note E-Spe speakers and their 300B power amp and have come close to the openness of the 3.6's and feel the AN sound is more dynamic without all the hysteria of tweeter panels and subwoofers. I recognize these are subjective comments but wanted to share that there are always new roads to explore in this hobby and the 3 years away from the 3.6's has left me satisfied with the changes I made and I no longer have the same nervosa which I attributed to some of the weaknesses of the 3.6's. I am not criticizing Maggies and prior to this change had been a Maggie guy since my first pair of MG-1's in 1978.
My uneducated guess would be that those who changed from planars aren't on this forum anymore. hehehe
For sure there are other brands of planar speakers on this planet and this forum is not only for Magnepan users... I think...
So now You know the sound of the B&W.
If You like the sound of dipoles, You should do Yourself a favor and get to spend some listening time with the other brands including electrostats.
From my experience all brands, models and types (boxes, planars and boxed dipoles/bipoles) do sound different and bring their own spice to the mix.
Just try to settle with those that makes YOUR feet stomp and YOUR hair raise.
Good luck!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: