|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
May I ask why? My current drivers are Tannoy HPD's (the 70's dual-concentric thang), re-coned, crossover split for bi-wire and upgraded caps. I like them very much. I cannot compare the Maggie 1.6's directly with the Tannoys, without buying them first. I'm trying to set up a dedicated listening space and want something that's all-round "better" than the Tannoys, so I can put the Tannoys in another system. Not sure how much I'm willing to spend, but say up to $4k for now. My taste runs to smoothness and clarity. Detail and soundstage are not so important to me. I cannot tolerate bright sounding speakers for very long. TIA, your experience is appreciated.
Follow Ups:
The very first pair of speakers I bought were MG-1s. These were replaced by Martin Logan Quests (electrostatics). Recently I replaced the Quests with SAP Quartettes (dynamic speakers). I have also gone from high powered solid state to about 8 watts of push-pull triode power (2a3). In terms of a technological timeline, I am regressing. I've heard some really nice set ups using horn loaded drivers, onken bass cabinets,etc. On some systems the drivers could have qualified for social security if they had been retired.Do you think I should start looking for sources for edison cylinders?
Do you count people who bought them for 30 days trial and returned them? If so, I know several of them.Paul Lam
P.L.C.Lam Consulting Inc.
I wanted to try that, but queries to the MUG board last spring and some further correspondence with other Canadians considering it: I never got a response from anybody in Canada who actually went through with it (return and/or upgrade). Since I can't compare the MMG's with 1.6's in a store... My attitude is that it's an experiment. I've been fascinated with planar speakers ever since an older friend got Quads in the early 70's. I'm not meaning to infer the Quad and 1.6 are in the same league...
.
Two reviews on this site and quite a bit more on audioreview.com (Product Reviews, main speakres, i for infinity, scroll down to Ren 90's).
I have a second pair of Maggies now. I still have me 3.3's but someone just gave me a pair of Tympani's! I wouldn't give up either for any other speakers out there. I have a long narrow room but I've got it covered with bankets on one end and the Maggies are 5 feet from the back wall. I have them turned around because they are far more open from the back than from the front. Also they have a network (zobel) of 120uF and 10 ohms on each. A curtain comes down from the ceiling and goes down the inside edge of the speakers and to the back wall. This makes an alcove for the bigscreen. It also keeps the Maggies backwave from mixing. My maggies are so good that when I got them I had to replace everything else in the system, front end to amps! I had to bring the rest of the system up to the level of the Maggies! The new (old) Tympani speakers I have now also work well in my room. I placed them in front of the 3.3's for now. They needed work when I got them but were still fuctional. I've replaced the connections on them and striped off their coverings. Those were way to thick. I also turned the woofer panels around to face forward. Then I had to add a bass crossover, it was missing. They look awful naked like this but sound wonderful! I'll be painting them back this week end and covering them again but in a very thing mat this time. With everything the Maggies do why would you go back to cones? When I die some will have the pry me away from my Maggies!bobwire
Hello,
I did, and I even started the Planar asylum. Maggies are good, but they require a special room and are BIG (I had 3.6's). They also are demanding of your amplification, lots and lots of current. Tubes and Maggies just don't go well together, despite what others say. Their much touted mellow quality is nice, but it is a coloration that the speaker adds. In their favor, they have the best bass that I personally have heard (though I haven't yet heard good horn bass)I now have horns - Oris 150 (which are cheaper than the 3.6 btw). They have everything the Maggie has and more. More detail, more presence, sound stage, speed, clarity, and best of all you can drive them with anything above 1/2 Watt ;) I wouldn't go back to a planar if you paid me, FWIW.
Dan
Hi Dan,
Which "version" of the Oris 150s did you get? I remember a while ago you asked for comparisons between the PM4A and PM4AER (?) drivers. I was thinking about blowing my bonus money to start a horn based system. Better than blowing it on "ale and whores" . :-)I'm going to be moving into a house later this year and am planning on dedicating two rooms for two different 2-ch rigs. So, I figure I may as well take two radically different approaches. Keep my Maggie centered system and start a DIY horn loaded system. I don't think I can go back to conventional "box 'n cone" speakers though.
The MG1.6s are (to me) more musically satisfying than any other box speakers I've heard. But, since I haven't heard any horn loaded speakers, I want to see what all the fuss is about (as someone said earlier).
Chia-Hao
Hello,
I decided to get the best - PM4AER, and am COMPLETELY glad I did. As I said I had Maggie 3.6's, AS OTL amps, and liked them enough to start the MUG and Planar asylum. Finally sold them and considered getting out of the hobby beause I just coulnd't get them to SING! Sure they sounded good, but more "doesn't he look natural" than real, live music.I heard a buddy's AvanteGarde Duo's, after a year of tweaking and breakin, and realized "hey, these are pretty damn good!" Then my friend built a pair of Voigt pipes and I realized "Hunh, single driver speakers. GODDAM! These are even better in many respects". The Oris always intrigued me, so I took the 3.6 cash and bought them as an experiment. At least I will have owned boxes, planars, and horns so will know the playing field.
While I wait for Bottlehead iron (which takes *forever*) I have a cheap receiver in there, and my TNT/JMW table as source. This goddam setup makes more music than ANYTHING I've ever heard. More detail, more presence, oh hell, I hate sounding like another audiophile who wets his pants over his latest upgrade, but these are the best speakers I, and my buddy have ever heard. Compared to Maggie, Quads, AG, JMLabs, etc etc. There's nothing worse than a poorly executed horn, and nothing better than one done well.
Get them, get the best drivers you can afford, and end the speaker upgrade battle.
Dan
I believe the saying is "I spent my money on wine, women and song, the rest I just wasted".I'm planning sort of what you are. I have two spare adjoining rooms 16x11 and 12x11 that have a 6' wide arch separating them. I think my listening chair could go roughly in the arch position, so I could just rotate the chair to hear either system. I too want to try a smallish tube and horn system out of curiosity. Some people suggest that now is a good time to buy used gear, so maybe that system will happen much sooner than I was planning.
Hi,
The only thing I'm concerned about is how am I going to have decent sources for both systems if I have them in two different rooms (without spending more money). I may end up with both pairs speakers in the same room, but on opposite sides. I guess it depends on whether I end up keeping both.Chia-Hao
when setting up the first room. Practicality/reality/common sense reared their ugly heads. If you have adjoining rooms too... The rack is now under the arch between the two rooms (in the "middle"), so that sources can be shared. Speakers will be on opposite sides of the dividing wall. I'll just have to move my chair (it's light) between rooms when the second system is established.
> > Practicality/reality/common sense reared their ugly heads. < <It makes sense, you can cut down on components, I'll probably do something similar. Use the same CD player, same pre-amp, just have two different amps and speaker cables to the speakers.
I don't have the house yet, but the floorplans of the houses I've looked at don't have anything like that. I think I'll use two adjacent rooms and feed a pair of interconnects through the wall.
Chia-Hao
it might not be a bad idea to discuss it with your builder. Off the top of my head, a "not too ugly" method might be to have "dummy" outlet boxes installed, near the floor like outlets, on both sides of the dividing wall, exactly opposite each other, very near where you want to put your rack. So you can feed cables through. Cover with suitable plastic plates for neatness, or for when you move. Also, a handy real outlet on a separate breaker for your gear. If you're at the right stage, these things should cost almost nothing extra, but of course can always be done later if you're handy.
nt
I don't see why I can't try a bit of everything. But for now, my system equipment is oriented towards a power pig, and I do have the room for 1.6's at least. I'm keeping my eyes open for some more refined tube gear, and some horns to go with it. The plan is to slowly build up another system with tubes and horns. Not a replacement for the solid state system, but a separate one for a different room. I expect this will take me until the end of next year, and that the Tannoys (sorta half horny, though not efficient) would serve in that system for a while.
Totally agree, horns offer a much more realistic sound. Plus they don't require ss amps or big overpriced tube amps.I've owned around 10 pairs of Magnepans plus stats and ribbons. They're good but are severaly compressed and fake sounding compared to live instruments, even with monster amps and a good room.
A good horn is much, much better in every way! (except maybe size)
Mike Bates
Horns Rule !!!!!
Horns and single driver speakers like the Lowther variants do have one or two drawbacks.One is SIZE. To extract bass down to only 50Hz (does not even cover the entire range of the Fender electric bass) it takes a speaker double the size of a floorstander like ProAc 1.5, which though smaller goes down an octave lower, to repro down to 50Hz.
A small stand mount speaker could go down to 50Hz.
Nowadays we have bass players with 5 string basses that go down to 32Hz. To get that low a horn speaker will have to be truly GIGANTIC!
The other thing aside from size and limited bass and the problem of citing the speaker in a domestic space is that horns love to be played loud. Very loud.
Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times.
If going for the absolute in terms of dynamic scale there really is no
compromise but to get horn speakers. That is if you demand or NEED your sound system to be played at (rock, classical or jazz) concert volume every time you listen to music. Imagine Led Zeppelin rehearsing in your room full tilt every night and you'll get why the horn speaker dynamic and volume realism can be both it's finest and worst attribute!Some horns are absolutely astonishing in this regard. But they aren't cheap.
They do have a small sweet spot, an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that there is little room interaction. I have wood floors, *floating* (not nailed - the house is 100 years old) Lath/plaster ceiling, wood wainscoting. Very, very live, boxes sound like crap in here, and Maggies too. My horn just sings in this room, all the sound shoots at the couch I sit on and gets harmlessly absorbed, diffused for the most part. Of course the disadvantage is that only one, or max two people get the advantage of the good sound. Fine with me, any more than two is a crowd, and means either a party or home theater, so a box design works there.Now the size issue is not a universal. See the Oris approach (www.bd-design.com) These go down to 150Hz, with a normal box type speaker to go from there down to 29 Hz, and you know what? it sounds great! These horns are smaller, and better looking than Maggie 3.6's. Even my wife likes the looks (and she's an artist)! They are a bit bigger and more imposing than 'average' floor standing speakers. They are smaller than many expensive boxes, such as the JMLabs. Now what about horn bass? Well, so happens that I have two corners, so I'm going to try Khorn bass bins, and still have smallish speakers. But if you don't have corners then you are stuck with HUGE bass horns, or just do the Oris (or AvanteGarde) solution.
Loudness, eh? These babies play just as well softly as they do loudly. Of course, they can handle realistic dynamics that other speakers can't touch.
As for cost, the Oris betters all other horns I and others have heard (including AG Duo's), and they cost much less (3200$ fully loaded with the best drivers and cones) than a Maggie 3.6. That doesn't include DIY work however. FWIW.
Dan
Hi,
So, you're listening to the Oris "sans bass" right now? I'm probably going to buy one of the kits with a bass cabinet. I figure, that mounting the horns on the bass cabinets would give a better image/soundstage height. When I listen to some box speakers, I always notice that the sound is coming "from below". Which is one thing I like about Maggies and other planars.Call me weird, but I sort of like the monolithic look of Maggies (and other large panel speakers). I just had to play "Sunrise" from "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" on my maggies once I got them. It seemed appropriate for somereason. :-)
I don't know if I like the look of horns, but looks really aren't important in my case.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of DIY work for the Oris 150s, at least for the horn part. Am I mistaken about this? I don't know if I'd want to build the bass cabinets myself, I haven't learned to love woodworking. But, I can have a friend do it.
Chia-Hao
Dan,
Saw one of your posts on the high-eff forum and noticed you said you DO have onken bass cabinets. When you mentioned you're getting corner horns I assumed you didn't have bass cabinets.I'll follow your suggestions and get the PM4AER drivers. I generally try to get the best available that I can realistically afford, even if it means buying later rather than sooner. But, I also don't like to spend more money if there isn't any significant improvement.
Thanks for the discussion, it's been helpful.
Chia-Hao
They are very good, but they can get a lot better. The ONken's match pretty well, but my old Maggie 3.6's had much more clarity in the bass, albeit less oomph. I would rather have the Maggie bass however. I'm hoping the Khorn will fix this.I can't judge if the AER is worth the extra money, because I haven't heard them without it. But these are so good, my reaction is that its worth it at ANY price. You'll be happy with the PM4AER.
Dan
I like Maggie bass too, there isn't a lot of it, but it's of high quality. And I've always cared more for quality than quantity. But, if I can have BOTH...What crossover are you using with it? Did you get the Revielle crossover? The kits look like it'll give me a lot to do, I hope I'm up for it all.
Chia-Hao
If all posters were to be as wonderful as you and not take comments about their horns so personally... :)I love horns. I hope to be able to get them one day soon.
To say that they have no grace would be a mistake. I hope I didnt say that. I have heard guitars sing very sweetly on horns. Nothing is perfect however. It is such a pity that some people cannot see past that... :(
Thanks. I just don't have much ego in it (not saying others do however.) I took a chance on these, and was rewarded with the best that I've ever heard, approaching 95% of reality, or something. Not perfect though. But if, no when (superconducting magnets anybody?) something better comes, I'll drop what I have in a hurry. I'm not holding my breath however ;)Dan
Your post is for the most part incorrect.> > The other thing aside from size and limited bass and the problem of citing the speaker in a domestic space is that horns love to be played loud. Very loud. < <
I would say that audiophiles love to play horns loud. This is due to the fact that a horn's lack of dynamic compression allows audiophiles to hear music with similar dynamics to the live event. A well amplified horn maintains 'ease' well into 3 figure dB territory. Where dynamic compression and its associated hardness would normally limit a dynamic speaker, the horn just carries on effortlessly producing the goods.
But is that a must? Will a horn lose dynamics or detail when it is played with at less stentorian levels?
The same way its easy to tell the difference between whispering, speaking and shouting, your brain also recognises the optimum level for music based on the instruments, distance perception etc. Turn a horn down low and while it will maintain its dynamic range, it will also communicate if the music is unnaturally quiet. But this is a characteristic of music and human hearing and not of horn loudspeakers.
> > Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times < <
The 'sweet spot' in most other speakers is defined by their dynamic compression levels. The 'sweet spot' with horns is for the most part defined by the music. A symphony orchestra at full crecendo is loud. Most dynamic speakers will not cope with the intensity and volume as dynamic compression overwhelms the sound and causes listener fatique.
Good horns however will produce realistic levels without fatique.
> > Imagine Led Zeppelin rehearsing in your room full tilt every night and you'll get why the horn speaker dynamic and volume realism can be both it's finest and worst attribute! < <This is like criticising a Porche because its so fast you can lose your licence.
I said your post was for the most part incorrect.
Horns are big. You got that right.
But these days integrating horns with superfast dynamic woofers for the last one or 2 octaves has become an effective (if not perfect) way to fit horns into most domestic environments.
"Nowadays we have bass players with 5 string basses that go down to 32Hz."Em.. I think that goes back quite a way in time..
"To get that low a horn speaker will have to be truly GIGANTIC!"
Yep, so use multiple 15" high efficiency woofers and get low distortion dynamic response below 20 cycles.
"The other thing aside from size and limited bass and the problem of citing the speaker in a domestic space is that horns love to be played loud. Very loud."
Not true. Horns don't care how loud they are played. This is controlled by the listener. My horns sound great at any level.
"Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times."
You are wrong. Why would "overwhelmingly loud" be some one's preferred listening level? What horns have you had in your room that need to be played this loud to sound good?
"If going for the absolute in terms of dynamic scale there really is no compromise but to get horn speakers. That is if you demand or NEED your sound system to be played at (rock, classical or jazz) concert volume every time you listen to music."
I think it goes back to realism. If you want musical realism, you need horns. They sound excellent at all levels IMHO.
" Imagine Led Zeppelin rehearsing in your room full tilt every night and you'll get why the horn speaker dynamic and volume realism can be both it's finest and worst attribute!"
Please......... If that's as loud as you want to play it, yes, you are right, but any one with a brain knows most stereos have a volume control.
Mike
Yo Mike-oh,
having PMS today or just a tiff with the wife?"Nowadays we have bass players with 5 string basses that go down to 32Hz."
Em.. I think that goes back quite a way in time..
----Dude, dude, dude...tsk tsk. "Nowadays we have the Internet to interact with insecure DIY horn making assholes"- Nowadays is a figure of speech. Now. A D-A-Y-S??
Not like uh last week. Nowadays. These last few decades apply here too.
"I think it goes back to realism. If you want musical realism, you need horns."And if you want realism you need the horns to move some serious air.
> "Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times."
> You are wrong.
Nope. You are. You having a bad headache this morning or just an empty stomach or something?
Every high eff. horn loaded speaker from Edgarhorns to Lowthers to multiple driver horn loaded speakers exactly like direct radiators, bipolars, etc. have a volume dependent "sweet spot".
Try finding the most musically realistic recordings and most people instinctively find the right volume level to make them come most alive.
Of course huge orchestras and marching bands need that volume. String quartets - unless one refers to The Who as such- do not require such SPLs to make them sound realistic.
Have your coffee, Mike.
Best Regards,
Ben
> Best Regards,
> Ben
I'd hate to see the manner in which you speak to those whom you have little regard for!
"Yo Mike-oh,
having PMS today or just a tiff with the wife?"No. I'm disturbed by your lack of common sense and your ignorance.
""Nowadays we have bass players with 5 string basses that go down to 32Hz."
Em.. I think that goes back quite a way in time..
----Dude, dude, dude...tsk tsk. "Nowadays we have the Internet to interact with insecure DIY horn making assholes"- Nowadays is a figure of speech. Now. A D-A-Y-S??
Not like uh last week. Nowadays. These last few decades apply here too."Re-read what you wrote. Or maybe just ask your mom to help you post, you seem to have a problem conveying the difference between days and centuries.
> "Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times."> You are wrong.
"Nope. You are. You having a bad headache this morning or just an empty stomach or something?
Every high eff. horn loaded speaker from Edgarhorns to Lowthers to multiple driver horn loaded speakers exactly like direct radiators, bipolars, etc. have a volume dependent "sweet spot". "
Reread what you wrote:
"Horns like most other speakers have a 'sweet spot' in terms of their volume level where they sound their best. And this tends to be overwhelmingly loud at times."
Now, why are you claiming the sweet spot of horns is overwhelmingly loud? What facts do you have to back up this BS? I asked you a question and you dodged it like a bunny running from a beagle...........
What horns have you had in your room that need to be played this loud to sound good?
Mike
As I see it, theres a problem achieving a secure sense of high frequency "tangibility". This is problem mainly for rock music. I have a pair of Radio Shack Linaeum dipole tweeters mounted on the frame (1.6's), directly above the ribbons that I switch in whenever Im feeling the urge. It really compliments the sound in an amazingly sympathetic way. However, other tweeters Ive tried just mess with the coherence, so if you try this, stick with that dipole.
Every large planar speaker in my experience has some band of frequencies (set-up dependent) where the big spacious soundstage behind the speakers collapses and the sound appears to be much smaller, and coming from right on the panels themselves. Maggies, Sound Labs, Acoustats, Martin-Logans, Audio Statics, Sound Labs, Apogees, Emminent Technologies ... every single one I've ever heard. I find this effect very annoying and, therefore, have never plunked down the green for a planar.I think this is a combination of several factors: 1) Beaming when the frequency wavelength becomes shorter than the panel size, 2) dynamic constriction and/or distortion as the panel nears its excursion limits, and 3) some combination of comb filtering effects or lack of integration between multiple drivers.
I have not heard this effect from Quad 63s, designed to mimic a point source, or from true line-source drivers.
I lived with a well set-up pair of Maggies for about two months, and I've chosen not to return, despite the many appeals of planars.
Rob Gold
OK, the room is especially critical, and seems to be the most common reason so far for getting rid of Maggies. And then their large room-dominating size. But I noticed, once again, that nobody ever says anything really disparaging about Maggies. Makes a guy curious, because I haven't found anything "wrong" with them either, considering the limitation of their physical characteristics. I was planning on getting the 1.6's tomorrow anyway, but thought there might be some initially subtle characteristic that becomes really annoying over time that the inmates could alert me to pay attention to. To see if it might bother me too. I'm just not a very critical listener, and tend to just go for the overall listening sensation and experience.
Did you read my posts? I hinted at some of their problems. I don't like to put them down, because they are great speakers in many respects. But their problems are the following3.6
Very audible mismatch between the magnificent ribbon tweeter and the other to panels. Listen to a soprano climb up its range and you will hear it. The ribbon outclasses the rest of the speaker. In my house the speaker sways around alarmingly when I walk around the room. Its costs a fortune to upgrade the components, and a fortune in amplification.1.6
No true ribbon. Crossover is internal.All of them
Cheap components internally - wire, inductors, caps. Used to be prone to breakdown, I don't know about now. Fabrics are ugly, IMHO. Generally big and ugly. Require to pulled FAR away from back wall - REQUIRED. This is a problem in most listening environments. Since they are also very wide require a lot of distance around them, especially if you put wings on them (recommended tweak). Very picky about amplification - sorry Myles, if your listening. Maggies do NOT 'luv tubes'. I listened to others on this and regretted it. They require lots of current, high power, low output impedance and bi amplification, at least bi-wiring. Why does Jim Winey biamp with Brystan amps? At loud volumes they compress and distort, worse than many box speakers. Regarding soundstage, they both magnify performers (plane wave effect, I believe) yet place the musicans at a distance, like your sitting in middle or back seats. Very odd. They don't have the 'presence' that good boxes, and horns achieve.
The high power requirements place more importance and stress on all the rest of the components of the speaker. Worse, they are prone to getting burned out, requiring a fuse on each panel. High power, and prone to getting burned out, huh? I was always worried about ruining them with my OTL amp, which is why I sold the lot. Also, they all have weird, cheap binding posts.
Sorry about this if your a Maggie fan, this is all IMHO. I still like them in many ways, but as I say elsewhere - I wouldn't go back if you paid me.
Dan, are you telling us that while the 3.6 problem is having
a true ribbon, the 1.6 problem is not having it? :)come on.... BECAUSE the 1.6 does have a quasi ribbon, which
is implemented onto the SAME panel than the woofer wires, you
get an AMAZING, seamless integration between treble, mids and bass!!!
that's why 1.6 is sooooooooo good; if, in addition, you upgrade
its xover componentes (very easy, no technical knowledge needed),
or, still better, if you bypass them all by vertical biamping
then BINGO! you get impressive results, well beyond the stock 3.6
best, paco
Well, I guess its an advantage and a disadvantage! I wish I could hear a modified 1.6 - I'm sure its glorious. But a modified 3.6 must be better! even if you lose some from having three drivers as opposed to two.You bring up an interesting point - perhaps its better not to have a ribbon tweet at all, because of the mismatch with the rest of the speaker. I don't know.
I must admit that I've always found it hard to believe that a tweaked 1.6 could be better than a stock 3.6 though - but you may have a point.
My 3.6 still has the best bass I've ever heard - even if it lacks a bit of Oomph. I need a couple of bass panels to go with my horn, I wish Magnepan sold them separately.
Best Regards -Dan
But I posted this comment before you did! I want to hear for myself, over an extended period. All I've ever owned is box speakers. Circumstances allow me to experiment a bit now. I think I have an acceptable space and amplifier to see what 1.6's can do. I have lots of electronics, but had only one set of half-decent speakers. Because of my listening habits, this required me to set my better gear up in a very restricting space. I think the Maggies qualify as half-decent at this point, so having them allows me to rearrange my stuff in a more purpose-oriented way. For one thing, they made me get off my butt and set up a listening room. I am not in any speaker camp because I just don't have the experience.And as I mentioned, I want to get some horns too. The Oris is out of my price league. None of my local dealers sell horns, and none of the local dealers I frequent even sell any tube gear - no demand, they say (?). So, if you've tried any horns in the (very preferably) under $2k range, and found them not too bad, I'd be pleased to hear about it. So far, I've found The Horn (Listener mag), the Jericho, and the Heresy. I might be able to hear the Heresy locally. I'd really hate to buy a speaker without well hearing it first, but I might have to. Thanks, and I do appreciate your comments.
Forgot one important thing - their touted 'mellow' quality. Yes they are mellow, which is a coloration. You need bright amplification to offset that - I suppose thats one reason SS works well with them. But I didn't like that mellow quality - bored me eventually, and made me always searching for ways to add dynamics, and brightness, and reality. Also forgot they don't 'slam' very well, and have somewhat poor dynamic qualities. I ended up just listening to chamber music, as that was what that could do best (in my room, situation etc etc) IMHO ;) ;)Dan
I did.I had MG3's (I think they were) and enjoyed them. I was in a money crunch once and let them go for 300.00 I really have not missed them that much...they were fun, but on loud passages (above 85dB) they would blurr the mids and highs from bass movement.
They are an aquired taste....definitly not Point source.
I had 2 sets of maggies , earlier ones tho , dog-pee , sunlight and bad glue scuppered the first set (tried a self fix , but to send em 6000 miles for a factory refurb wasnt worth it and I managed to bugger up the mylar anyway) , 2nd pair (MGIII's afairememeber) were way to big for my new home (a small rented cottage at the time), so sold em (and was sorry)
Those models needed serious amps to power em to decent levels without em flapping etc , and bass was a bit weak with both.
Placement can be problematic and they are VERY ugly speakers and rather obtrusive (not that my current speakers are any better:)I have my strongest and fondest Audio memories with a set of maggies , some monster TEAC monoblocks (when TEAC made good equipment) a TEAC pre and either a Linn or Ariston TT - perhaps I wasnt that discerning then , but they sure sounded like the bee knees.
I Tried a set of SMGs a few years back , but couldnt get em right in my room.
I would definately try a set before buying em
Rodney Gold
I did, and I couldn't be happier! Truth be told, I listened to 1.6, 3.6, IIIA, and finally 3.3, which I bought because of the true ribbon tweeter. I drove them with McIntosh gear, and for a while thought I had something really special. The vocals were outstanding, the imaging was the best I'd heard, and the upper freqs were as smooth as silk. I purchased a NHT sub and gained some sorely missed bottom end, and thought to myself "It really can't get much better". After a period of many months, however, I realized that every time I listened, during the time the music was on and especially after, I felt dissatisfied; sure, the music was present, but I didn't "connect" with it like I used to. It didn't have any "bite", nor the explosiveness of drums and percussion in general. It was beautiful sound, to be sure, but the life was missing. To make a long story short, I bought an ASL 30 watt tube amp, a Lehman Black Cube for my Rega P3, and a pair each of Klipsch Cornwalls and Heresys. That might be a purist "audiophile approved setup", but let me state for the record that I've never been more involved with the music and I never turn off the system feeling unsatisfied. Go figure.
Oops, that last sentence in the paragraph should have stated "That might NOT be a purist "Audiophile approved setup". Whew, you can say that again!! Ha ha.
Still enjoyin' the music.
In the late 1970s, I owned a pair of MG-IIs and drove them with a Dynaco 200 wpch amp. Apart from their deficiencies in the low bass, that system was one of the most convincing that I have owned. They portrayed a depth of soundstage and front-to-back perspective extremely well. Left-right localization was not as precise, but have you ever heard precise left-right localization in a live acoustic (i.e. unamplified) venue? Midrange was glorious; top end gently rolled off, which probably obscured the limitations of that sold-state amp.Like the inmates below, I sold the system only because I moved to a smaller place that would not accommodate the Maggies' placement requirements. They must be well out into the room and well away from side walls. Any other placement destroys the sound and the magic.
I replaced them with a pair of B&W DM7s, which were very good speakers at the time. Better bass, more extended treble, better lateral imaging but not the midrange magic.
I have not seriously auditioned contemporary magnepans because I still do not have a room for them. If I had the right room, I would definitely be giving them a listen.
I sold my Maggies a few days ago. I had 2.5R's and had no complaints with them. However, I recently relocated from a house in the midwest to an apartment on the east coast, and the apartment size and layout made it impossible to get the Maggies (and myself) truly happy. My NHT 2.5's and Dahlquist DQ-10a's are much happier in this environment and perform better than the Maggies did. Given a larger listening room, I would not have considered parting with them, since when things are right, they definitely had magical abilities.
nt
Not quite to the water, but near Raleigh, NC.Tim
nt
A mere 3 hours away right up Hwy 1. I haven't been there in many years.
The people that are usually disatisfied with Maggies are people that don't have the proper listening room for them. They are big speakers that sound best pulled out away from the walls. They have a relatively small sweet spot so they are ideal for a dedicated music room. They are extremely revealing - if you feed them a bright signal they will sound bright. The Bryston gear you own should sound pretty good with Maggies but if you want a warmer, smoother sound you might consider spending some of your budget on a tube preamp. The 1.6's with the $300 crossover upgrade has been reported my many to come reasonably close to the 3.6's which would leave some of your budget for a preamp change, etc.. In the right listening room, Maggies can be an awesome experience (but you won't hear this at most dealer setups).
A tube preamp and the XO upgrade are what I had in mind over the medium term. I have had good experience with my 1.6 auditions, but know it's not like at home. I always dislike the sound of new gear at first, and it could probably be the break-in thing, something I didn't appreciate until I found this place a couple of years ago. For one thing, the dealer equipment is probably at least somewhat broken in, if not optimally arranged.
I went form MGIII's to Apogee Calipers to Dynaudio 1.8MKII's
Why? Well the maggies while having a large soundstage begain to annoy me within a few months because I could hear the bass panel always
a half step behind the ribbon tweeter. They were replaced in less then
a year because of that. The Calipers were about the best of the Apogge
line at the time because I couldn't hear the differences between there
woofer panel and tweeter panel. Spooky imaging! Especially at night
with the lights turned off. Down right scary sometimes.
But I missed the power of dynamics. My earlier speakers were Frieds
and I missed what they could do so I bought the Dyn's and built a pair of subwoofers for them.
GTF
I got some MMG's to see what all the fuss was about. I run them off an NAD c340 and also have a powered sub. I was quite impressed by these little guys, and I suspect that the 1.6 is much, much better. However, I couldn't live with the somewhat imprecise imaging, so I went back to regular bookshelf speakers. For now, I listen to my HT rig, which is Mission bookshelfs all around plus sub. I think it does most things better than the MMG's particularly dynamics. That being said, I don't think dynamics are a problem with 1.6 properly driven.Since you said you can go up to 4k, you should definitely listen to the 3.6! They have even less limitations than the 1.6, and when properly set up and fed adequate juice, I'm told that they can make magic!
FWIW, I'd think that either the 1.6 or 3.6 should represent quite a step up from your Tannoys.
Good luck!
I had the MMGs also. I loved them for jazz but for rock music they just didn't cut it. I was powering them with a Hafler 220. It wasn't the bass I really missed. It was the highs that always seemed lacking. Plus I got tired of arranging my room around them. I replaced them with B&W 804 Matrix IIs, which my sister now has. At some point in time, I wouldn't mind going back to Maggies. There are certain things they do very well and I think the higher end models really make music.
I have owned the mmgs and the 1.6s and now own nOrh marble 9.0. I like to try various equipment to see what the fuss is about also. I liked my maggies but could never get them to truly open up in my room with my power source and room dynamics. Room placement is tough. I enjoy the look and sound of my nOrhs better than the maggies. The soundstage is wider with a huge sweetspot and the detail and imaging is better. Then again my norhs use the scanspeak revelater tweeter and woofer. I might go back to the maggies down the road just because I liked them, though I am most happy with the marble 9.0 and plan on keeping them a long time.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: