This is probably old news to a lot of you, but maybe it will help someone considering the same. I have a small dedicated room 12.5 X 13.5 with ASC planks on the front wall and wedge foam at the the first and second reflection points and behind the listening chairs wall. Not optimum for either speaker. Electronics are all Ayre, cables are Audioquest Panthers and Mount Blanc. I've been a Maggie addict for many years, everytime I would bring a box speaker in, I knew right away it was a mistake, and the Maggies were back quickly. This time it appears to be different.
I had grown sensitive to the lack of fullness and a graininess coming from the 1.6's, so I decided to try the 3a's. My room had a 70hz peak that was painful if you tried to use a sub. (Paradigm Servo 15) It took a while to get the 3a's postioned, but they are now in a triangle, 3' from the wall and 16" from the side wall. I will make no bones that I am Ga Ga over the 3 a's after listening to them over the last week. The only thing I can say the 1.6 do a little better is the midrange, but they are darn close! The bottom end on the 3 is great, controled and linear, I was surprised that it worked so much better then the 1.6's in a small room, plus the sub integrates very well for the really low stuff. The highes are smoother on the 3a also. Floating in space comes to mind.
One of the things I really like on the 1.6's is the size of the soundstage. Height and depth. The 3a's soundstage is higher then most box speakers I have heard, slightly above the cabinets. This is a plus for me. Depth is about the same.
What the 3a's do best that I have never heard the 1.6's approach is the inner detail, I hear things that I never heard before, it catches me off guard at times. Also the space they put between performers and instruments is fantastic. I find the 3a's a full, accurate musical loud speaker that I can listen to and enjoy immensely for hours on end. When I listened to the 1.6's, I usually had to cut the time shorter then I wanted due to listener fatigue. The 1.6's got moved to the home theater fronts where they are strutting their stuff quite nicely. And I would be nervous to let them go this quick...LOL
Yes the 3a's are twice the price, so they SHOULD be better, but us Maggie owners know that the 1.6's are a lot better then a lot of other speakers out there that are more then twice the price, so take it as it is. For any 2CE owners, when I auditioned the 3a's, I had the 2CE sig swapped into the mix. All I'll say is that if you love the 2's and are thinking about going to the 3's.....don't hesitate. There is a night and day difference. And the 2's were nice.....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Vandersteen 3a sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - Atver 14:26:08 04/09/07 (16)
- Re: Vandersteen 3a sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - tonyjack 11:34:35 04/11/07 (0)
- Re: Vandersteen 3a sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - saltyflies 08:10:05 04/11/07 (2)
- What does "di-pole-ish" mean? - suits_me 18:55:59 04/11/07 (1)
- Re: What does "di-pole-ish" mean? - saltyflies 15:23:59 04/12/07 (0)
- I went the opposite way - Mike in NJ 14:28:50 04/10/07 (2)
- The 3.6's are an awesome speaker... - Atver 15:23:44 04/10/07 (0)
- I went the opposite - opposite way - kavakidd 15:12:40 04/10/07 (0)
- well; you R talking about a speaker (after taxes) around $4 grand - Green Lantern 12:33:20 04/10/07 (0)
- If Magnepan would only... - RickeyM 06:07:56 04/10/07 (2)
- Re: If Magnepan would only... - middleground 06:23:19 04/10/07 (1)
- Re: If Magnepan would only... - RickeyM 07:44:04 04/10/07 (0)
- Re: Vandersteen 3a sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - Ozzy 01:50:05 04/10/07 (0)
- Re: Vandersteen 3A sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - Craiger56 21:15:53 04/09/07 (1)
- Some other speakers I've owned or heard..... - Atver 12:02:49 04/10/07 (0)
- There's a reason for this - mjda12 17:57:46 04/09/07 (0)
- Re: Vandersteen 3a sig compared to Maggie 1.6 (Long) - Lesley H. 14:47:22 04/09/07 (0)