Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
70.27.60.161
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 ... :)
Follow Ups:
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.
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).
n.t.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: