 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Magnepan Magneplanar MG12 Speakers posted by Roberts @bandstand productions on January 05, 2000 at 13:20:43:
Roberts: I kept one of the ST70's and had it modified with a solid state power supply. This fall I had a chance to try it with the MMGs and the Denon before I sold off the St70.The ST70 is warm with more detail. The most noticeable difference is the sound stage is much deeper with the ST70. It is clearly a more musical amp than the Denon. But it does not have the horsepower for the MG12 at listening volume.
The Denon receiver was carefully chosen and has a very good amp for a receiver. Even with 160-180 listed watts into 4 ohms it audibly runs out of gas when turned up. So I am now in the amp shopping business.
A new amp to match the quality of the MG12 is not inexpensive. The cost range of choice is between $1300 to $2500 dollars. And of course, there is the wife factor with that expense. Marriage is a wonderful institution?
hey guys, I've narrowed my selection down between the mg12's and the mg1.6
i have been talking to Magneplanar home office and Lyric Hi-Fi in NYC. My questions are a) what are the real power requirements for both speakers, and is a SW really necessary, I'm not into organ music..b) my room size is 14X20 with the speakers facing the long wall. are the 1.6's to big?
B) first. No, they are not too big. My room is about 14x24 and they work great, if you can live with a couple of "doors" in your room. Might get a few corner reflections if you put em near one of the short walls and toe them in a bit, but I found a cheap remedy that does the job and actually looks good... just get a couple of fake potted trees for the corners. They look good (especially with a slightly oriental looking decor) and tend to tone down the appearance of those two stark white panels somewhat.A). That quite depends on what you drive them with. Some like to drive them with big old Brystons, others wax philosophical about driving them with small tube amps. I had a set of MG-12s for about a month and my little Yammie rx-v995 drove them quite beautifully. The Yammie is a bit bright as an amp in stereo mode, but the midrange and up was so smooth that I quickly became addicted to them. They can use a sub, but it has to be a good fast one or you'll find it lacking... I quit using my sub for music because it just sounded flabby by comparison (ok for HT though). Soundstage on the MG-12's seemed a little low, but you can experiment with the angle and boosting their height with stands of some sort. Traded up to the 1.6qr's about a month later. They are very similar sounding to the 12's only the soundstage is at the proper height, deliver more sound and have better bass (don't think these need a sub). Noticed an improvement in clarity when switching from "large" to "small" which cut out frequencies below 90Hz, so the 1.6's could use a bit more oomph than my little 100 watt reciever could deliver so I tried a 130 watt amp (using the yammie as a pre-amp)and was amazed at the increase in bass response when driven full-range.... unfortunately, this amp was a cheap mid-fi and was a bit weak on the high end so I lost some of the treble extension. I have a feeling that a good hi-fi amp, say 100 to 150W/channel (that won't wimp out driving 4 ohm speakers) should drive them marvelously well. Since I was already bi-wiring the 1.6's, I left the bass connected to the second amp and connected the high end back up to the Yammie and much to my amazement, it worked out exceptionally well.... nice smooth mids and highs and excellent bass (fortunately, the 2nd amp was an integrated because I even had to turn the bass down a bit on bass-heavy recordings like Enigma for fear the neighbors would complain). Surround mode is also great because there is less of a strain on the Yammie since it only has to drive the tweeters (my rear speakers are an old set of full-range dynamics, only because I couldn't afford to keep the MG-12s as well)and it eliminates the slight drop in clarity when switching from stereo to DTS or AC-3 modes. I've heard this pseudo bi-amping arrangement can cause hum and phase problems, but I have a feeling the interconnect I'm using has good enough grounding that I'm not getting a ground loop between the amps (DIY RG-214 coax...you could wire a stove with that stuff) and I lucked out with the phasing. So, this arrangement will serve until I trip over a used Bryston or something.
Some one asked about speaker cables? My old speakers were wired with 14ga zip and then I somehow wound up with a roll of Poco 12ga so I just ran that in parallel with the existing 14ga and this worked just fine. Then I tried bi-wiring the maggies using these:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ubyte2e.html for the tweeters... imagine it would work quite well for a single-wire arrangement too (besides, why spend gobs of money on esoteric brand-name cables when you can make them for next to nothing). Anyway, If you've got a good sub, then go for the MG-12s, If you don't, then go for the 1.6's Both image well enough that you don't need a center channel for most HT setups either... just run the center in phantom mode. If you absolutely need a center, someone mentioned that B&W made one of the few that could match well with maggies. (HTM1 perhaps?)
Pam, Thanks for the info.. I bought the 1.6's, the ? is when will I get them? 8-20 wks? quien sabe. The next thing that comes up is a Amp, pre and tuner.I can afford about $1500. any new stuff out there for that kind of money?.. also what is the burn in time? do I run them on FM? feed them a special diet of busy music? any input ???
RegardsHugh
Well, if I had the money to be able to afford separate music and HT systems, I'd probably get a tube pre-amp and a SS power amp. Since space and $ prohibit this, I haven't really looked into reasonably priced pre-amps. Maybe someone else can suggest a nice pre/power combo. I thought of trying to find an integrated amp to drive them but most don't seem to pump out too many watts so I'm looking into pro equipment at the moment (could use another tape loop and have some stuff with XLR-style balanced inputs so thought perhaps there might be something in the line of a studio near-field monitor amp that might work). Otherwise, I might just try a vanilla power amp... Acurus, Rotel or something.Burn in? Well, most people seem to think maggies are a bit shrill right out of the box and take a couple of weeks to burn in. I really don't know since I took the ones off my dealers floor and don't know how long they've been running them... probably not long since they seem to sell well. I suppose part of burn-in involves stretching out the membrane and the amp electronics settling down to a stable operating point with their new loads. A good portion of it is also between your ears (brain takes a while to train to accept the new sound as natural), so I don't bother doing anything special... just play music and let my ears burn-in with the equipment.
thanks for the time, expertise and effort. I'm looking forward to getting the panels home. I'm a total tree stump when it comes to shopping for the amp, preamp & tuner. because of the limited amount of money I have to spend($1500). do you recommend going for used equipt? when I talk to people about a good receiver, they laugh. How about technic Amp. parasound etc? while they will never be confused with Conrad Johnson, krell etc. As you can see I need some sound (pun) advice..
Thanks
Hugh
Well, if you have a dealer who won't rip you off, or at least will give you a 30 day trial, then buying used equipment can be a very good way to go (audiophiles tend to take good care of equipment and if they have the $$$ they often tend to swap new equipment into their systems fairly often so some very good equipment can appear on the used market at much better prices than new... if you have an audio shop that seems to do a fast business, they might get in a lot of stuff in on trade-ups... occasionally something good might show up at a pawn shop, but not very often). Might also be good to look up the model numbers on used equipment (probably don't want something so old that it needs all the capacitors replaced, though I am using my 25 year-old Yamaha CA 610-2 integrated to drive an old set of mini Advent's as a computer sound system and it still sounds better than the plastic junk computer speakers at Best Buy). Technics? Probably not the best unless you're looking for a pro DAT/MD recorder or something. Parasound seems to have made a few nice amps. Hafler and Crown made some good and some bad amps (can never keep straight which model was good though). SAE made some good amps but they are out of business so repair could be a problem. While not audiophile, Yamaha did make some fairly decent AM/FM tuners and Dynaco made some nice tube pre-amps (my brother still uses one). You might check http://www.playitagainsam.com/ I've never dealt with them but you might get someone to wax nostalgic over various pieces of equipment to get some advice even if they don't have anything you might want at the moment. People here would probably be able to give some good advice too.
Thanks again, I'm in NYC and we have some pretty reputable dealers for used equipt, but then again, if its really good, its selling for close to list.
There is still some "new" carver amps available, I'm tempted for several reasons. Years ago I added an old c9 to a fisher (made in Brooklyn)receiver 504, and i use to driver people crazy when I played it thru a couple Ohm 8's. BC's ribbon speakers were pretty decent Now with my 1.6 maggies I don't want to underpower and I have to stay within a $1500. budget. The Carver A760 & CT 28 might be good for ME.. what do you think?
Hugh
Not familiar with Carver's so I can't help you there. I know a lot of people run HT systems with them hooked to Nak-AV10s, Yammie DSP-A1's, Denons and Rotel surround recievers, so, depending on how loud you want to play them, you could get by on something that is stable with 4 ohm loads and pumps out 150+ watts should work. Some people drive them with 40 watt tube amps and love them.... best just to make sure the amp can drive 4 ohm loads and try it out.
in my opinion, the power requirements for 12s and 1.6s seem similar. Seems to be a big jump to the 3.6s though.
I have a 16x20 room and the 1.6s should fit just fine. I seem to not have a problem with the speakers only 3.5 ft from the back wall and 4 ft from the sides. Seem to be very forgiving, despite claims to the contrary on this site and elsewhere. ??? I have to say I miss the bass with the 12s even though I don't listen to thumping kinda music. I would have bought a REL sub with any speakers, after hearing the difference. And crossed over at only 28 Hz. Go figure; there just seems to be lower harmonics in a lot of music that is very enjoyable to just barely notice.I am bucking the trend here and using black cloth with cherry. Silly, but I am going to build the entertainment center out of cherry to match. With 1.6s in front, CC1 (black) on TV, 12s (black) in rear, there will be no awards from Architectural Digest won here. But I just love the monolith look. Tim Allen would say ough, ough, ough!!!
I dont't think you're bucking a trend with black cloth and cherry. It's what I ordered.But how about this far out idea. I'm not using a center channel with the MG12s. The sound picture between the speakers is strong enough for smooth dialog that appears to come directly from the television. And oh, when the background music kicks in on DVD, it is spectacular.
When I started this thread I didn't want to throw too many ideas into the hopper, but there are many interesting possiblities.
There is specific information in the center channel encoded on DVDs. Plus, I am going to be using my REL sub on the center channel information in DVD mode. In a few months I will certainly experiment, but an industry expert I talked to said that skipping the center is ok with Maggies but not the same as having one. I didn't get details, but I might be able to. . .
I bought the 1.6's tonight (white with oak trim) I should get them in 8-10 weeks. My dog has a speach impediement ARTH ARTH
First of all, Hugh, subwoofers are NOT really necessary. I own a pair of the smaller ones and the balance, overall, is just fine. The bass is not necessarily powerful, but it IS incredibly musical and tight. The larger the panels (as in the 1.6) the deeper the bass will go, but I wouldn't worry about it. Plus, you threaten the quickness of the lower bass reproduction by bringing in a traditional bass driver. If you get a VERY high quality subwoofer with a relatively short throw (go for a 10" rather than 12", for example), you can get away with it.As far as the 1.6s being too big for your room, it's more a matter of aesthetics. I have the same sized room. Sonically, they'll be fine. They will be even more dominating in the room. Suggestion, go for the white fabric, not the black. The white blends in more with the walls. The black looks like something out of "2001: A Space Odyssey."
Thanks Jeff B.
what kind of power drives the 12 and 1.6? your point re the SW is well taken. In a time when size matters, I'll go with white or grey. the bottom line becomes is it worth the price jump? does the upgrade go beyond the 1%???
Hugh M.
Well, I have not personally heard either of these incarnations. My speakers, the SMGc, were designed at produced along with the .6 and the 1.5. Ironically, the SMGc is still available and for sale in Europe and Japan where the MMG is not available (so it's still being manufactured). I bought my SMGc speakers about 2 years ago.I have an old Absolute Sound from twho and one-half years ago which reviews the entire line from the 3.5s downward to the SMGc. The 3-way 3.5 was considered the best overall, now bettered by the 3.6. These are apparently EXTREMELY power hungry, as are all their 3-way speakers. The next one down, the 2.7s, were fairly identical except using the quasi-ribbons rather than the true ribbons. These had a darker overall sonic quality to them. The 1.5s were like better than the 2.7s (but not more than the 3.5s). The one thing that the larger paneled speakers purportedly did better was resolve denser passages. The larger panels become overwhelmed less easily. You also get deeper bass.
Well, the .6 resolved passages better than the SMGc largely because it was using better planar panels. The .6 compared to the 1.6, however, did vocals a bit better and sounded even less dark. Like mini-monitors, mid-range and vocals often come across best with smaller speakers. I guess because they are being asked to handle less of the overall burden, much like the advantage of a 3-way.
In some ways, the reviewers liked the SMGc overall for value, because you get a majority of the Magnepan sound (which is, indeed, magnificent overall, despite their shortcomings, and there's nothing really like them, particularly at the lower price points), and they don't require the power of the big guys.
Personally, I am considering moving up to at least the M12s, as I'd like the resolving capabilities of the somewhat better quality drivers, but I might consider the 1.6s if they will physically work in the room. Again, I'd even stay away from the gray fabric as it's not real light either.
The Magnepans don't require alot of power as much as they require an amp capable of delivering alot of current. Generally, amps with larger transformers will supply higher current. These amps tend not to be of the mass market variety.
I have known people to use NAD integrateds and amps to drive the smaller Magnepans with no problem. The higher quality the power, the more effortless the sound will eminate from these speakers. Although I have known people to use the NAD 314 (having 35 watts per channel into 8 ohms and approximately 70 into 4), I'd probably go a bit higher. Magnepan recommends a minimum 50 into 8 ohms and that's the best place to start.
I know someone who uses an AMC 30 wpc tube integrated to drive them and they are happy. What you'll lose with less power is in the bass, where it will have a bit less authority. Maggies don't have alot of authority down there to begin with. What they do give you is musicality, conveying the quickness and overtones of notes down there which you often have to pay many many times more to get that kind of bass reproduction. If you don't have quite enough power, you might lose the quickness and confidence down there. For some, they don't care because the rest of the sound is so outstanding.
I can tell you that I started putting 50 watts per channel at 8 ohms with my Cyrus II. It already came with a large power supply. The Maggies sounded quite fine. I then picked up an external power supply made for the Cyrus which boosted the power to 70 wpc, but the power supply is absolutely huge -- About the size of a bread and butter plate you might use in a restaurant. The bass suddenly had a real weight and authority it just didn't have before.
While the SMGc and the M12 speakers have a minimum suggestion of 40 watts per channel, the 1.6 has a recommended minimum of 50 wpc. Not a big difference? Well, no, but I can tell you that there are people who have put some huge amps out to power the 1.6s and still can't get those things to play at extremely loud levels. That's not how I would use these things anyway. I think that they are more for refined listening than rock and roll. A good high quality amp should make the any of the Maggies from the 1.6 on down play very good music.
I, like you, will be doing some auditioning of both of these. Whichever one I get will likely be my speakers for a long time.
I purchased, and have been TRULY enjoying, Maggie 12s combined with a Vandersteen 2Wq sub (3 8-inch drivers -- VERY fast and deep) powered authoritatively by a Bryston 3B-ST. I opted out of the 1.6s due to one reason: the 12s give you EVERYTHING the 1.6s do except that little extra bass (which was not an issue for me since I am also using a sub). My recommendation: 1.6s if you're not getting a sub, 12s if you are. Another recommendation...get a sub. I listen to primarily classical and jazz and, organ music aside, a good sub greatly enhances the sounds of acoustic basses, timpani, tuba, cellos...My 12s are "grey" -- charcoal grey. I use Cardas Quadlink cables/ICs.
Regards
SE-
I came to a similar conclusion that you did. I went with the 10.1s with a Velodyne HGS-10 servo sub. The 10.1s use the same drivers as the 1.6, but just don't have the surface area, giving up the bass, but again, not a concern in my case. I liked the slim stature of the 10s.I am getting very good results with the little Velo. It's very tight and once placed right, blends in completely. Running in parallel and crossed at 80. I've found that sitting the sub on the inside of the left speaker inline with both is the best position in my room. I don't think I would happy with larger maggies with no sub. I like the strong bass foundation of a sub. It really adds some authority to music. Although I can understand someone not wanting to use one, everyone has a preference.
My 10s are black with custom trim pieces. The trim is gloss black, invisible from the front, to match the HGS sub and my Meridian CD player. It's smoked plexiglass, but when attached to the black fabric it looks like black glass.
NEIL
Enjoy!
How much listening did you do to the 1.6s. Were you using the same associated equipment?I imagine that the resolution would be greater with the 1.6s. After all, it would take more to saturate the panel.
Actually, prior to purchase, ALL of my listening was with the 1.6s powered by the Bryston (and some others). In all cases, the CD Player and pre-amps were more expensive equipment than I had in mind. Audio dealers LOVE selling expensive CDPs :-)Following 8 solid listening/testing hours with the 1.6s I made several decisions:
(1) The 1.6s had the best mid/treble presentation of any speaker I could afford. 2nd place went to Martin Logan SL3s -- just as large, MUCH more expensive, but less-than-compelling sonic integration between their upper panels and their cone woofers.
(2) Although they have some bass (down to 45Hz?), it just wasn't enough for my tastes (I just couldn't get "comfortable"). I went with my heart (this is a "life purchase") and my dealer's recommendation for the Vandie sub (I did some research, and it looked great too).
(3) I then decided that the 1.6s were larger speakers than I needed, since the Vandersteen 2Wq kicks in at 80Hz. I purchased the MG12QRs without having either heard or seen them. I researched to find that they are the same generation technology as the 1.6QRs, the only difference being (as far as I could tell) their physical size and, hence, frequency range range. Resolution? I can hear individual voices in massed choirs, spit in the throat of inhaling vocalists, finger nails on piano keys, the dull thud of conductors moving vigorously on podiums...all of which tell me that I have more than enough resolution, and that recording companies mike to closely!Quite honestly, I haven't gone back to "revisit" the 1.6s for further comparison.
Jeff B, Thanks again
I'll be making a buy decision soon. Lyric Hi Fi has suggested I bring in a couple of CD's, I have chosen an old Amanda McBroom for voice and a Angel Romero Vivaldi Concertos for Guitar and Von Karajan's Brandenburg's
for mojo. Any suggestions? I rather spend $50. on CD's and discover a speakers flaws than spend the next couple of years bemoaning a poor choice.
In any event, I'll keep you posted on my decision and its outcome.. Thanks again
Hugh
I'm not familiar with the Amanda McBroom CD, but as long as you're very familiar with the music, that's what's important. You need to know what the CD normally sounds like. Keep in mind that the electronics and the CD player play a factor here too.The guitar concerto will be good for transients, the Brandenberg merely sweet. I'd bring in something that conveys transients more. A full orchestral work that you know and is recorded well like Tchaikovsky's "1812" or (if you know it) Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (the 2001 theme). If you don't have either of these, Reiner and the Chicago Symphony on RCA doing these is the best combo of performance and sonics. There are two recordings of the Strauss by Reiner and the CSO. Get the 1954 rather than the 1961 recording.
The larger orchestral works will not only demonstrate the ability of the speakers to resolve denser passages, but will demonstrate different kinds of instruments other than voice and strings. With the other two works, you're bringing in percussion as well as brass and reed instruments. Plus, these latter two CDs are monsters and "must-have" performances anyway.
Good luck and let us know how the audition goes.
Jeff
I have both Reiner/Ordmandy recordings, your right earlier is better. As for Tchaikovsky I have several, but I have a particularly harsh Jansen with the Oslo Sym. its like listening to Kunzel and as for Von Karajans Brandenburg its with the Berlin Phil.and while sweet Its so lush its not rec. for dieters. It was perhaps his best effort.
Amanda McBroom wrote "the Rose" she was going around the country as the vocal demo for monster cable. clearer tonal quality than Sarah Brightman.
Well, anything coming out of Sarah Brightman, particularly if it's written by Andy, makes me cover my ears.Keep us informed.
Sarah has one of the very few perfect pitch voices, with great dynamics and a range to others can only dream of. Sure a good part of the material she has been given to sing is not the best but she does well with it.She is starting to come around and I think her best is yet to come if Angel/EMI will do what they need to with the recording quality....Kelly
firstly, she calls him "Andrew"
secondly, for range and clarity she's a true test of mid-range.
thirdly, if you like Kansas try her "dust in the wind."
fourthly, I like a full figured women, its sooo "reuben"
fifthly, she does a lot to help out blind Italian tenors.
sixthly, I'll keep you informed
thanks again
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
