Talk me into 3.6's [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Talk me into 3.6's



Mike Anderson
09-19-2006, 10:41 PM
Currently using Magnepan 1.6qr's, and I love 'em. They're still in great shape (so I could get a decent price selling them used, also with the Mye stands).

But I have some cash to burn. So... anyone want to talk me into upgrading to the 3.6's?

My amp is the Pathos Logos. I don't know offhand if that's enough to take full advantage of 3.6's. Also, my room is not ideal. It's a little on the small side, it's asymmetrical, and there's all kinds of furniture and crap that makes it complicated to deal with.

So, is it worth the extra bucks? Any of you 3.6 owners out there want to testify, even under less-than-perfect conditions?

Florian
09-20-2006, 09:30 AM
Well, the 3.6 walks all over the 1.6 Then the smallest Apogee Stage and up walk all over the 3.6 and starting with the Duetta/Scintilla they will walk over the 20.1 also. Look for an Apogee Duetta etc.... thats my recommendation.

GMichael
09-20-2006, 10:00 AM
Well, the 3.6 walks all over the 1.6 Then the smallest Apogee Stage and up walk all over the 3.6 and starting with the Duetta/Scintilla they will walk over the 20.1 also. Look for an Apogee Duetta etc.... thats my recommendation.

Do you know if any of the new Apogees will be available for less than $4k?

Rick Vansloneker
09-20-2006, 02:26 PM
I bet not...

Mike Anderson
09-20-2006, 08:57 PM
Yeah, I definitely can't go any higher than $4k on this.

But is my amp going to provide enough juice, or am I going to have to spend extra to replace it?

Bingo
09-21-2006, 12:05 PM
[B]Mike - I do not want to give you advice, just sympathy and share with you a very similar predicament. I had the 1.6 QRs for about two years and enjoyed them very much, but I knew all along that my 12 x 15 room wasn't really big enough to do full justice to them. But all the while I had the 1.6s I drooled over the 3.6 ... and wrestled with the idea a long long time....but.....(here comes the but) .... I really knew that if my room was too small for the 1.6s then it would definitely be too small for the 3.6.s ... and so I dropped the idea. Later, I sold the 1.6's for a pretty good sum, and then discovered that the JAS audio Orsa speaker used a true ribbon tweeter thant went all the way up to 60k ...(did I say that right?) ...and so I thought that the true ribbon tweeters would be fine since they were housed in a monitor, a small (bookshelf sized) speaker...the Orsa has a response down to 45 hz, but I have on order a SVS SB12 Plus which will go all the way down to 25 hz..maybe less. I don't have the sub in yet, but I do find that the Orsas give a very good presentation....and they FIT my room a heck of a lot better than the tall 1.6's...
NO! I am not at all suggesting you go for Orsas..everyman has ears and every ear has subjective responses...yours ain't like mine and mine ain't like yours.... But if you can audition some monitors and check them out with a right to return if you don't like them, it might be worth a try.... Actually it was fun wrting this even if you completely ignore it.

Bingo

JoeE SP9
09-21-2006, 05:41 PM
Currently using Magnepan 1.6qr's, and I love 'em. They're still in great shape (so I could get a decent price selling them used, also with the Mye stands).

But I have some cash to burn. So... anyone want to talk me into upgrading to the 3.6's?

My amp is the Pathos Logos. I don't know offhand if that's enough to take full advantage of 3.6's. Also, my room is not ideal. It's a little on the small side, it's asymmetrical, and there's all kinds of furniture and crap that makes it complicated to deal with.

So, is it worth the extra bucks? Any of you 3.6 owners out there want to testify, even under less-than-perfect conditions?

What size is your room?

Mike Anderson
09-24-2006, 01:21 PM
^^^ About 15x20.

JoeE SP9
09-24-2006, 02:52 PM
What else is in the room? Is it your standard living room with furniture? Depending on how much else is in the room they may fit quite nicely. Buy them!!! You know you want them. If the room turns out to be too small get a new house. You are an audiophile aren't you?:ihih:

Grandpaw
09-24-2006, 05:40 PM
^^^ About 15x20.

I'm no expert here but that seems like it will be an awful tight fit in a room that size for those speakers plus furniture and get the room around your speakers that you need. There needs to be room around them so they will do their best not just make sound, Jeff

Mike Anderson
09-24-2006, 05:50 PM
What else is in the room? Is it your standard living room with furniture?

Pretty much, yeah. No couch, but it opens up into our dining room, so there's a table there. A couple chairs, some bookcases, etc.

Some people said my room was too small for the 1.6's, but I love 'em. I put casters on the Mye stands so I (or my wife) can easily move them out or back as needed. For listening I can typically get them a good 4' out from the back wall.

They sound great to me -- and wouldn't mind more of the same.

I'm a little more worried about having enough power to drive them to their full potential.

bobsticks
09-24-2006, 09:33 PM
What else is in the room? Is it your standard living room with furniture? Depending on how much else is in the room they may fit quite nicely. Buy them!!! You know you want them. If the room turns out to be too small get a new house. You are an audiophile aren't you?:ihih:

C'mon Mike, you know you want 'em. More surface area equals better, we're all aware of that. Everything will be just fine :devil:

Feanor
09-25-2006, 05:54 AM
I'm no expert here but that seems like it will be an awful tight fit in a room that size for those speakers plus furniture and get the room around your speakers that you need. There needs to be room around them so they will do their best not just make sound, Jeff

The 3.6's have ribbon tweeters, I believe. These will have much wider dispersion at higher frequencies than the quasi-ribbons of the 1.6's. I'd suspect this make placement more critical, especially with respect to the side walls. Would you say this is true?

Mike Anderson
09-25-2006, 07:38 AM
I can get my 1.6's a couple feet from the side walls. But a problem is that the positioning is necessarily asymmetrical with respect to the side walls (i.e. one will always be closer to the wall than the other).

This is unavoidable, given the way the room is laid out. Is it a big problem?

E-Stat
09-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Currently using Magnepan 1.6qr's, and I love 'em. They're still in great shape (so I could get a decent price selling them used, also with the Mye stands).

But I have some cash to burn. So... anyone want to talk me into upgrading to the 3.6's?
In short, the 3.6s extend the bandwidth of the otherwise excellent 1.6s a bit at both endst. The greater panel area helps the bottom and the ribbons at the top add some extension and "sweetness".

They do, however, require some power to make them really sing.

rw

Mike Anderson
10-27-2006, 07:51 AM
Well I'm leaning towards getting them, but I still haven't figured out if my present amp has enough juice to drive them well.

It's the Pathos Acoustics Logos:

http://www.pathosacoustics.com/indexeng.htm (click on Logos in menu on the left)

Main specifications:
Output power: 110W RMS @ 8 Ohm, 220W RMS @ 4 Ohm
Frequency response: 2Hz-200KHz 0,5dB
THD: <0.05%
S/N ratio: >90dB
Input impedance: 100 KOhm

Any advice on this score?

People on Audio Asylum are saying you need around 500 wpc to drive the 3.6s well. I find that hard to believe though; the Logos drives my 1.6s just fine, as nearly as I can tell. Are the 3.6s really that much harder to drive?

Mike Anderson
10-28-2006, 06:39 PM
^^^ Alright, well never mind - it's a moot point now, because I just ordered them. And since most of the advice I got (elsewhere) suggested that more power was definitely in order, I got one of these:

http://www.musicalfidelity.com/products/kw/kw500.html

Almost 800 wpc! That oughta do the trick.

A dealer gave me a very good price on a display model w/few hours on it, so I went ahead and bit. I've paired MF and Magnepan before, so I'm pretty confident this is going to be a great combination. It's quality gear, built like a tank and extremely clean.

Can't wait 'til everything gets here!

Geoffcin
10-28-2006, 07:27 PM
^^^ About 15x20.

Don't worry, youve made the right choice.

The 1.6r are fantastic speakers. In some ways they are BETTER than the 3.6's. But you are going to forget that once the 3.6's are broken in. (better planar bass) The fact is that the 1.6qr's are slightly more coherent through the midrange-treble crossover due to the excellent quasi-ribbon tweeter. BUT, that being said, there's NOTHING that can match the speed & purity of the pure ribbon tweeter that the 3.6r uses. And NOTHING I've heard can match the quality of sound of the dipole line source pure ribbon tweeter (many cost-no-object speakers use the same type of tweeter).

The Magnepan 20.1r uses a quasi-ribbon midrange, and a push-pull Planar Magnetic bass driver (that goes down to an astonishing 25hz). That speaker comes closer to matching the ribbon tweeter in speed and shoud be considered, but when all the chads are counted there NO speaker that can touch the Magnepan 3.6r for bang-for-the-buck in the under 5k range.

As I've said before, you've made the right choice, congrats!

Mike Anderson
10-28-2006, 08:51 PM
^^^ Thanks -- I've not heard a great deal of music from true ribbons, so I'm anxious to hear how they'll sound in my new setup.

But what I'm *really* looking forward to is the beefier bass, which is a good part of the reason why I went ahead and splurged for the MF kw500. I love the tight, rich bass of the 1.6QRs, but I every time I hear them, I just want MORE!

Geoffcin
10-29-2006, 04:38 AM
^^^ Thanks -- I've not heard a great deal of music from true ribbons, so I'm anxious to hear how they'll sound in my new setup.

But what I'm *really* looking forward to is the beefier bass, which is a good part of the reason why I went ahead and splurged for the MF kw500. I love the tight, rich bass of the 1.6QRs, but I every time I hear them, I just want MORE!

But I wouldn't discribe 3.6r bass as "beefy". More like lean-and-mean (and totally accurate). It goes a bit deeper than the 1.6qr, but there's really only slightly more in quantity. Also your going to have a long breakin time to get that deeper bass from them. If you play a lot of bass-heavy material through them it might be as little as a month, if you easy on them figure a YEAR before the bass panel really performs up to spec.

I really like MF gear, but don't let the massive power rating of the Kw500 fool you into thinking it's going to be bass-heavy. I've always found MF gear to be neutral to slightly bright (at least through the 3.6r). So, even with all that power your going to get a neutral presentation from that amp. That's a GOOD thing, as long as that's what your expecting!

Mike Anderson
10-29-2006, 07:46 AM
^^^ I'm aware of the bass situation -- maybe my use of the word "beefy" wasn't quite accurate.

I'm partly thinking of the fact that it goes down to 35hz, but I'm really talking about the quality of the bass, not quite so much the quantity. I really enjoy the controlled, tight, fast sound of the bass my 1.6qr puts out, and I'm thinking the kw500+3.6qr will be more of the same (only more!)

I've owned a MF integrated amp before, and it was the same -- very neutral and clear -- but there seemed to be a specal synergy with the magnepans. The super-clean presentation was exactly what was needed to bring the best out of the high-resolution maggies. Some people probably would have described the sound as "clinical", but I thought it was beautiful accurate and uncannily realistic.

I probably should have kept the amp (passed it along to my brother, who loves it) but I somehow convinced myself I needed something fancier. It wouldn't have provided enough power for the 3.6s anyway, but I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting into with the kw500.

Feanor
10-29-2006, 08:45 AM
...
I've owned a MF integrated amp before, and it was the same -- very neutral and clear -- but there seemed to be a specal synergy with the magnepans. The super-clean presentation was exactly what was needed to bring the best out of the high-resolution maggies. Some people probably would have described the sound as "clinical", but I thought it was beautiful accurate and uncannily realistic.

I probably should have kept the amp (passed it along to my brother, who loves it) but I somehow convinced myself I needed something fancier. It wouldn't have provided enough power for the 3.6s anyway, but I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting into with the kw500.

Are you referring to your Pathos Logos which I believe you use? Why not try them with the 3.6's before worrying about?? Claims that 3.6's demand 500 w/c sound apocryphal to me; the Logos will be OK reasonable listening levels, I'd bet.

If I had the "problem" of the 3.6's and didn't have an amp I'd certainly look above 200 w/ch, but much beyond that I'd look for quality rather than quantity.

Geoffcin
10-29-2006, 08:57 AM
^^^ I'm aware of the bass situation -- maybe my use of the word "beefy" wasn't quite accurate.

I'm partly thinking of the fact that it goes down to 35hz, but I'm really talking about the quality of the bass, not quite so much the quantity. I really enjoy the controlled, tight, fast sound of the bass my 1.6qr puts out, and I'm thinking the kw500+3.6qr will be more of the same (only more!)

I've owned a MF integrated amp before, and it was the same -- very neutral and clear -- but there seemed to be a specal synergy with the magnepans. The super-clean presentation was exactly what was needed to bring the best out of the high-resolution maggies. Some people probably would have described the sound as "clinical", but I thought it was beautiful accurate and uncannily realistic.

I probably should have kept the amp (passed it along to my brother, who loves it) but I somehow convinced myself I needed something fancier. It wouldn't have provided enough power for the 3.6s anyway, but I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting into with the kw500.

But that's going to be very dependent on how much room you can put behind the speakers. The 3.6 likes 3 to 4 feet of free space behind them to develop the best bass.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about the power requirments of the 3.6r either. I'm doing a review of a modest ( but high quality) 50wpc intergrated amp, and it drove my 3.6's with NO PROBLEM. If anything it was MORE bass heavy than my PS Audio amp!

I kept my MF A3cr amp when I got my PS Audio and it's a good thing I did, as it's doing duty now driving my Maggie CC3 center. The MF amps responce is perfect for a speaker with a Quasi-ribbon tweeter as it give it just a subtle amount more "air". On the 3.6r this is not needed, and can be just a little over the top on treble loaded recordings. The Kw series is more dead-neutral than the A3 series, so my guess is that your going to get a high quality
but dead flat response from the union.

Mike Anderson
10-29-2006, 09:07 AM
Are you referring to your Pathos Logos which I believe you use? Why not try them with the 3.6's before worrying about?? Claims that 3.6's demand 500 w/c sound apocryphal to me; the Logos will be OK reasonable listening levels, I'd bet.

If I had the "problem" of the 3.6's and didn't have an amp I'd certainly look above 200 w/ch, but much beyond that I'd look for quality rather than quantity.

Yes, selling the Logos. I like to listen at high levels, and I play a lot of bass-heavy music. And the MF kw500 is definitely quality, not just quantity.

Mike Anderson
10-29-2006, 09:09 AM
The Kw series is more dead-neutral than the A3 series, so my guess is that your going to get a high quality but dead flat response from the union.

That's exactly what I'm looking for. I want it accurate, not colored.

BTW, I saw somewhere that the kW series are the only amps MF still makes in the UK, is that your understanding?

I had the A3.2 integrated, and I don't know where it was made, but the build quality was impeccable.

Geoffcin
10-29-2006, 01:50 PM
That's exactly what I'm looking for. I want it accurate, not colored.

BTW, I saw somewhere that the kW series are the only amps MF still makes in the UK, is that your understanding?

I had the A3.2 integrated, and I don't know where it was made, but the build quality was impeccable.

I really don't think your going to get more/better bass because of the high power. You WILL be able to play louder and longer without your amp frying, but remember that the 3.6r is a fused speaker. I've got a fistful of burned tweeter fuses to prove it! And all done with either the PS Audio (hard to do), or MF amp (not so hard to do). Amp RMS watt ratings are one thing, but the 3.6r tweeter fuse is rated for about ~275 watts (that's JUST for the tweeter), and the A3cr had NO problem producing that much current into a transient.

Don't know about MF moving the production out of country, but I do know that Antony Michaelson is a stickler for quality. EVERY piece of MF gear I've seen is built to last. Even if he now makes them overseas (not China please!) I would expect them to be top quality.

Mike Anderson
10-29-2006, 04:07 PM
I really don't think your going to get more/better bass because of the high power.

Well I should still have the Logos when the speakers arrive, so I'll find out. If it turns out there's no significant difference, I'll keep the Logos and send the MF back.

But about 80% of the opinions I've seen on this point say large amounts of power from a good, clean amp will give you a tighter, more controlled bass.

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 04:21 AM
Well I should still have the Logos when the speakers arrive, so I'll find out. If it turns out there's no significant difference, I'll keep the Logos and send the MF back.

But about 80% of the opinions I've seen on this point say large amounts of power from a good, clean amp will give you a tighter, more controlled bass.

That sounds about right.

Fact is that about ~20 watts or so into the 3.6's get my room about as loud as I like it.

Watch as the Logos gives you a warmer bass signature than the MF.

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 12:34 PM
^^ OK, but two points, once again:

1) Your loudness preference is likely different from mine, as is your taste in music and your room;

2) I'm not really talking about volume per se, I'm really talking about control (i.e. dynamics).

I've noticed that when people compare the low-power versus high-power amps with Magnepans, the people who tout the low-power amps consistently talk about a smoother (sometimes described as warmer or "more musical") sound.

I suspect this is really a lack of dynamics. I've played both low and comparatively high-power amps on my 1.6QRs, and I noticed the same thing -- what we're really talking about is how the amp renders extreme changes in volume, e.g. rapid attack and decay.

This is just a matter of preference I suppose, but I really like those dramatic displays of dynamics, particularly at high volumes and bass levels. To me, they tend to grab your attention and make the sound more realistic and "there". Listen to a really fast solo on a stand-up acoustic bass, a bass-drum heavy drum solo, or a heavy synth line played at high speed. I find it very pleasing to hear all the ins-and-outs, if you know what I mean.

It's certainly a more aggressive, up-front sound, but for my tastes and my music, that's very appropriate.

GMichael
10-30-2006, 12:53 PM
Did you get your 3.6's yet?
Are those 1.6's on their way to me yet?

:18: :18: :18:

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 01:08 PM
^^ OK, but two points, once again:

1) Your loudness preference is likely different from mine, as is your taste in music and your room;.

My musical preferences run the gamut from Ravel to Korn. On any given day I'm libel to blow a fuse or two. Basically there's nothing that CAN be done to my speakers that I haven't already done. (save modifying them)

^^
2) I'm not really talking about volume per se, I'm really talking about control (i.e. dynamics)..

Control is more a function of damping factor. It's TRUE that high powered amps (SS that is) tend to have higher damping factors. The MF Kw has a huge damping factor, much more than the Pathos does. That being said, the 3.6's don't respond to damping factor nearly as much as some cone speakers. Hook the MF Kw series to a speaker like the B&W 802 and you'll think that someone turned on the subwoofer! That's not true with the maggies. Each speaker/amp system is going to respond differently, so there's no hard-and-fast rules.

In any case your going to have a chance to hear for youself. The best thing is to have an open mind about it.

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 01:14 PM
Did you get your 3.6's yet?
Are those 1.6's on their way to me yet?

:18: :18: :18:

Haven't gotten them yet, but I promise, on the day they get sent out, I'm putting up an ad for my 1.6QRs -- they'll be a very good deal, because they're in pristine condition (only nine months old).

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 01:16 PM
In any case your going to have a chance to hear for youself. The best thing is to have an open mind about it.

Oh I definitely will -- there'd be no point in spending a few thousand extra on an amp if it doesn't offer any improvement, and I made sure returning the MF would be an option.

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 01:32 PM
Control is more a function of damping factor. It's TRUE that high powered amps (SS that is) tend to have higher damping factors. The MF Kw has a huge damping factor, much more than the Pathos does.

Right, the specs say the damping factor is > 200 (I assume that's against an 8 ohm load - so it's something like > 100 for the 3.6Rs.) I don't know what it is for the Pathos.


That being said, the 3.6's don't respond to damping factor nearly as much as some cone speakers.

Do you mean to say they result in a lower damping factor because they're 4 ohm speakers? (My understanding is that damping factor is the speaker load divided by the output impedance, in which case you get half the damping factor compared to 8 ohm speakers).

If you mean something else, I'd be interested to hear why -- It's not obvious to me why the damping factor would make less of a difference on something like ribbons as compared with cones.

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 01:35 PM
Oh I definitely will -- there'd be no point in spending a few thousand extra on an amp if it doesn't offer any improvement, and I made sure returning the MF would be an option.

There's always a point to keep TWO quality amps around also. A friend has THREE, and it's always fun to switch them back and forth. Keeps your ears on their toes so to speaker..

Oh: the MF Kw is a Reference Quality amp. Your Pathos, no matter how much you like it isn't. The MF is going to have a ruler flat responce from unity up to god only knows how high. The Kw will drive ANY speaker, including the esoterics with absurdly low resisitance. The Kw is also capable of producing enough current to KILL you. Nothing to be too concerned about, but just make sure the amp power is OFF when you go to change speaker cables.

In any case "DON'T PANIC!"

Sorry, we were just talking about Douglas Adams so I had to slip that in.

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 01:47 PM
Right, the specs say the damping factor is > 200 (I assume that's against an 8 ohm load - so it's something like > 100 for the 3.6Rs.) I don't know what it is for the Pathos.

Do you mean to say they result in a lower damping factor because they're 4 ohm speakers? (My understanding is that damping factor is the speaker load divided by the output impedance, in which case you get half the damping factor compared to 8 ohm speakers).

If you mean something else, I'd be interested to hear why -- It's not obvious to me why the damping factor would make less of a difference on something like ribbons as compared with cones.

They only say >200 because once your past that it's nearly a moot point.

The 3.6's use magneplanar tech for the main panels & ribbon for the tweeter. Both those techs are nominally resistive in nature. Damping factor comes into play when the speakers motor (voice coil) sends back current into the amp. With some speakers the current sent back can be quite significant. This is a reactive load, and the more reactive the better an amp with a high damping factor. A speaker like the Scintilla is highly reactive (the ribbons it uses are basically unrolled capacitors) and hooking that speaker up to an amp with a low damping factor will result in a "China Syndrome" for your amp. You ABSOLUTLY need a MF Kw with a speaker like that

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 02:21 PM
The Kw is also capable of producing enough current to KILL you. Nothing to be too concerned about, but just make sure the amp power is OFF when you go to change speaker cables.

Thanks for the warning! Don't worry though, I wouldn't think of changing cables w/o turing the thing off (I always thought it could damage your amp to power it up w/o speakers connected, since you've got no load on the current).

BTW, am I going to have a problem with tripping my circuit breakers? I don't know how many amps this thing will pull from the wall, but it talks about a peak-to-peak current of 160 amps -- which sounds like a helluva lot of juice to me! Obviously most of this is going to be stored in capacitors, but... sheesh!

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 02:29 PM
Thanks for the warning! Don't worry though, I wouldn't think of changing cables w/o turing the thing off (I always thought it could damage your amp to power it up w/o speakers connected, since you've got no load on the current).

BTW, am I going to have a problem with tripping my circuit breakers? I don't know how many amps this thing will pull from the wall, but it talks about a peak-to-peak current of 160 amps -- which sounds like a helluva lot of juice to me! Obviously most of this is going to be stored in capacitors, but... sheesh!

And moved my old PS Audio 200c while it was on and the music playing. One of the leads slipped off the post and contacted the opposite lead. In a second the 8 amp rail fuse had blown, and my cables spades were WELDED together! That amp could swing 70 amps. With 160 in play you could start a small thermo-nuclear reaction.

No worries about the main breakers unless you get some Scintillas, then all bets are off. (and your electric bill is off the charts!)

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 02:52 PM
^^^ Great, thanks - good to know I want have to worry about installing a 20 amp line anytime soon.

MF puts protectors on the binding posts to prevent shocks. But it's odd that the amp has two pairs of binding posts for each side, what's up with that?

Geoffcin
10-30-2006, 03:05 PM
^^^ Great, thanks - good to know I want have to worry about installing a 20 amp line anytime soon.

MF puts protectors on the binding posts to prevent shocks. But it's odd that the amp has two pairs of binding posts for each side, what's up with that?

No less than Vince Bruzzese, Owner of Totem Acoustic told me flat out that using bi-wire is the only way to go. Even their little "Mites" are set up for bi-wiring.

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 03:44 PM
Well I have my 1.6QRs biwired, but that's using a 1-into-2 configuration (one terminal on the amp end, two on the speaker end). I hadn't heard of amps being setup with two sets of posts, but I'll give it a try.

Feanor
10-30-2006, 04:30 PM
...
This is just a matter of preference I suppose, but I really like those dramatic displays of dynamics, particularly at high volumes and bass levels. To me, they tend to grab your attention and make the sound more realistic and "there". Listen to a really fast solo on a stand-up acoustic bass, a bass-drum heavy drum solo, or a heavy synth line played at high speed. I find it very pleasing to hear all the ins-and-outs, if you know what I mean.

It's certainly a more aggressive, up-front sound, but for my tastes and my music, that's very appropriate.

... the speakers for you after all. They are seldom recommended for people who like punchy bass at high levels. Maybe Cerwin Vegas ... :D:D :D :D :ihih:

Mike Anderson
10-30-2006, 06:05 PM
^^ I suppose you're joking, but yeah I know the Magnepans don't have that punch-you-in-the-chest type bass, and I'm fine with that. What I want is quality, not quantity, and not punchy.

There was a time when I listened to a lot of punk rock, and harder/noisier rock stuff (think Iggy and the Stooges), and I still have it in my collection but it isn't what grabs me anymore. These days I want resolution and refinement.

I got past the testosterone peak a looonnng time ago.

Florian
10-31-2006, 11:54 AM
After my search i have found that bass is really needed and while Apogees have much more bass then Maggies it was not after i got my new speakers, with flat respsonse to 13Hz under full power that i knew what i was missing. I would couple the Maggies with a Velodyne HGS18 or something of that caliper. My new system uses motion sensors on the ribbons to accelarate and match the subwoofer, properbly a reason for the perfect integration which cannot really be copied but oh man, never without a beast of subwoofers again.

Well, at least for me ;-)

PS: Resolution and refinement is fine, but you can have this and slam! ;-) Cause the slam is on the CD, MP3 or whatever.

Cheers

Feanor
10-31-2006, 04:24 PM
After my search i have found that bass is really needed and while Apogees have much more bass then Maggies it was not after i got my new speakers, with flat respsonse to 13Hz under full power that i knew what i was missing. I would couple the Maggies with a Velodyne HGS18 or something of that caliper. My new system uses motion sensors on the ribbons to accelarate and match the subwoofer, properbly a reason for the perfect integration which cannot really be copied but oh man, never without a beast of subwoofers again.
...

Cheers

I've been living without a subwoofer for my MG 1.6QR's for a while, but something has got to be done. I really miss the bottom octave. :(

Geoffcin
10-31-2006, 04:33 PM
I've been living without a subwoofer for my MG 1.6QR's for a while, but something has got to be done. I really miss the bottom octave. :(

4 or five full notes at best. There's no instrument save a church organ that produces a note lower than 30hz.

Florian
10-31-2006, 04:49 PM
If you guys say so. Listen to Pink Floyd the Wall Live and use a subwoofer with a clean 16Hz response and tell me if you find anything missing on a Maggie 20.1 or big Apogee when the wall is crashing down.....my guess is : Yes :ihih:

Mike Anderson
10-31-2006, 05:14 PM
Flo! I was wondering when you were going to chime in (no pun intended).


4 or five full notes at best. There's no instrument save a church organ that produces a note lower than 30hz.

It isn't a pure tone at 30hz though; that may be the fundamental frequency, but there are lots of subharmonics and other things going on in the sound.

My Behringer unit has a Real Time Analyzer that goes down to 20hz, so I can confirm that a lot of music goes that low.

However, I don't have any huge desire to hear it. For one thing, once you get below 35hz at high volume, stuff around the apartment starts rattling. And I don't find it particularly musical, for my tastes. So I bought a subwoofer, but ended up ditching it.

Florian
10-31-2006, 05:31 PM
Well my advice is straight forward as usual, keep the Pathos Logos for the Maggie 3.6 The Maggie has limits in the bass department, in the resolution and slam. They are quite a bit higher then on your 1.6 and the difference is definetley worth the money in my book. But if you really wanna move ahead then i would suggest some Apogees. If its Maggie you want, then i would stick with the Logos!

Mike Anderson
10-31-2006, 06:19 PM
^^^ I'll definitely try it out along side the MF. I'll be surprised if it equals or betters the MF, but I'll keep an open ear, so-to-speak.

Feanor
11-01-2006, 03:32 AM
4 or five full notes at best. There's no instrument save a church organ that produces a note lower than 30hz.

The 1.6's don't go much below 40 Hz, of course. And I do listen to organ music once in awhile. One of my favorite 'audiophile' recordings is John Rutter's Requiem on Reference Recordings; it's just not the same without the deeper organ notes. Plus I agree with Mike that there are often subharmonics, or something, going on that isn't necessarily instrument notes.

Mike Anderson
11-01-2006, 08:50 AM
I also listen to a lot of electronically-generated music, and of course there's nothing to say a synthesizer or computer can't go well below 30hz.

I have a song that has a bass line with "holes" in it because certain notes drop below the range of the 1.6s. So instead of "bum bum bum bum bum bum..." it sounds like "bum bum ___ bum bum ___..."

Dusty Chalk
11-01-2006, 08:59 AM
I remember the first time I heard N.I.B. on a decent stereo system. It was also the first time I ever heard the fundamental.

Mike Anderson
11-01-2006, 07:17 PM
OK, I got the MF today, and it's plugged into my 1.6QRs. I've been listening to it for a couple hours now, and let me just say... HOLY F*$%.

More/tighter/better bass? YES, better bass, absolutely, no question about it. It's not even close. I can stand in between the speakers and feel the floorboards flexing under my feet. No way that happened with the Pathos. If you close your eyes, you'd absolutely swear there's a subwoofer in the rig. And this with the 1.6s!

Is the Pathos "smoother" and "warmer"? Perhaps. But this thing is just plain unrelenting with the dynamics and transients. Every 20 seconds I do a double-take because something sounds like it's right there in front of me. Even the cats are spooked. It's just amazingly realistic and attention-grabbing, yet not the least bit fatiguing. I'll take that over "smoother" any day.

And this thing puts out an ungodly amount of volume, completely effortlessly. I turn it up only half-way to 12 o'clock, and my wife starts complaining. I had to put the Pathos on 80/100 to do that, and then it starting sounding strained. This thing is just pure grace, no strain in sight. And I don't even have the guts to turn the volume past 2 o'clock!

I'll write a more thorough review after a few more days with it. The 3.6s won't be here for another couple weeks, and man am I anxious to hear them with this amp!

Sorry Florian, but the Brits have it over the Italians 200% on this one. It's not even a close comparison, it's night and day.

Dusty Chalk
11-01-2006, 11:14 PM
Okay, I'm a little behind.

YOU GOT A MF KW500?!?!?

I envy you.

Mike Anderson
11-01-2006, 11:35 PM
^^^ Yes. I'm on hour five now, and I'm still astonished by this amp. It is *really* in your face. There are times when the sounds seems to come out of the speakers, grab you by the ears, and smack you around like a $20 whore.

I keep expecting myself to say, "OK, I've had enough of this now, I want something normal sounding again." But it hasn't happened yet!

And it isn't just the bass, it's the highs too. This thing is 100 lbs of pure muscle. And yes, it really does weigh 100 lbs (45 kg for those of you living in countries smart enough to adopt the metric system.)

I can see how this wouldn't be for everyone though. I'm pretty sure my Mom wouldn't like it.

jrhymeammo
11-03-2006, 10:23 AM
And you still have 3.6 on the way, right? I wonder if you have to get another kw500 to maintain your psychosis.

-Gaimiamo

Florian
11-03-2006, 10:26 AM
And they laughed at me when i told them that once the planar virus bites, that you will spend a lot of money. :ihih:

Geoffcin
11-03-2006, 10:31 AM
And you still have 3.6 on the way, right? I wonder if you have to get another kw500 to maintain your psychosis.

-Gaimiamo

Dual amps = total seperation of signal. But the MF is a dual-mono design, so I wouldn't think it would that much of a difference.

Me thinks someone is going to be buying a lot of fuses......

JoeE SP9
11-03-2006, 10:36 AM
Just think about the surround system you could build using 3.6R's for the fronts and 1.6QR's for the rears. All you need now is something for the center. Of course, a couple of decent true sub woofers wouldn't hurt.:ihih:

jrhymeammo
11-03-2006, 10:45 AM
Dual amps = total seperation of signal. But the MF is a dual-mono design, so I wouldn't think it would that much of a difference.

Me thinks someone is going to be buying a lot of fuses......

Ahh. I thought Kw500 was a poweramp.

Mike Anderson
11-03-2006, 11:07 AM
^^^ It's an integrated amp. But it appears the two sides are entirely separated, at least in the power section. The power supply even has three separate cords, for the preamp plus the left and right power sections.

Geoffcin
11-03-2006, 11:15 AM
Just think about the surround system you could build using 3.6R's for the fronts and 1.6QR's for the rears. All you need now is something for the center. Of course, a couple of decent true sub woofers wouldn't hurt.:ihih:

Except I would stack the 1.6's for the center channel, and get a pair of the MMG's or MC1's for surrounds. Match that with a take-no-prisoner sub and your sure to be in the elite ranks of HT.

Feanor
11-03-2006, 01:27 PM
Except I would stack the 1.6's for the center channel, and get a pair of the MMG's or MC1's for surrounds. Match that with a take-no-prisoner sub and your sure to be in the elite ranks of HT.

Isn't it EStat who occassionally jaks about HP's MC system? Doesn't it have 20.1's in front and 3.6's in back? :eek:

Mike has an upgrade path!! :thumbsup:

Geoffcin
11-03-2006, 01:40 PM
Isn't it EStat who occassionally jaks about HP's MC system? Doesn't it have 20.1's in front and 3.6's in back? :eek:

Mike has an upgrade path!! :thumbsup:

But I do think that's correct. The ultimate system would have to be matched 20.1's fore & aft, and a stacked pair for the center. That's 3 pairs of 20.1's!?!

Florian
11-03-2006, 03:00 PM
But I do think that's correct. The ultimate system would have to be matched 20.1's fore & aft, and a stacked pair for the center. That's 3 pairs of 20.1's!?!

That would be a cute system and not really that expensive to buy used!

Mike Anderson
11-03-2006, 08:33 PM
You people are insane.

JoeE SP9
11-04-2006, 04:03 PM
Well, he did have both pairs of speakers at once. I forgot about the center channel. I generally run MC sources in phantom mode.:ihih:

E-Stat
11-04-2006, 06:56 PM
But I do think that's correct. The ultimate system would have to be matched 20.1's fore & aft, and a stacked pair for the center. That's 3 pairs of 20.1's!?!
Harry wanted 20.1s in the rear, but Diller would only give him the 3.6s. He does use stacked MMGCs as centers (clamped together) and FOUR Nola Thunderbolt subs. The issue with the centers is not to block the screen - which in HP's case is 100" driven by a Barco projector.

rw

Geoffcin
11-05-2006, 04:12 AM
Harry wanted 20.1s in the rear, but Diller would only give him the 3.6s. He does use stacked MMGCs as centers (clamped together) and FOUR Nola Thunderbolt subs. The issue with the centers is not to block the screen - which in HP's case is 100" driven by a Barco projector.

rw

The MMGC doesnt hold a candle to my CC3. You could stack a pair of those top & bottom on the screen if you really needed to get the volume up. How big is his room anyway?!

E-Stat
11-05-2006, 11:15 AM
The MMGC doesnt hold a candle to my CC3. You could stack a pair of those top & bottom on the screen if you really needed to get the volume up.
I stand corrected. I wasn't aware there was more than one Maggie center and assumed it to be the other flavor. He uses a pair of CC3s clamped together.


How big is his room anyway?
It has a funny shape because the right wall opens up with a bay window. The french doors from the entry and all the windows are covered, so the room is always dark. I'm guessing it is like 26 x 14 or so (slightly wider at the bay). The listening couch is maybe 8' out from the back wall (which filled with records). There's also a closet in the back where he keeps extra cable, old cartridges, and all sorts of devices.

rw

Geoffcin
11-05-2006, 12:24 PM
I stand corrected. I wasn't aware there was more than one Maggie center and assumed it to be the other flavor. He uses a pair of CC3s clamped together.

Very good, but overkill. (like the whole setup)



It has a funny shape because the right wall opens up with a bay window. The french doors from the entry and all the windows are covered, so the room is always dark. I'm guessing it is like 26 x 14 or so (slightly wider at the bay). The listening couch is maybe 8' out from the back wall (which filled with records). There's also a closet in the back where he keeps extra cable, old cartridges, and all sorts of devices.


14" is kind of slender to get proper seperation from the 20.1s. While I'm sure it sounds great, the 3.6's would better fit the room better.

One of the interesting things that I found when going to the HE show was that room size made a big difference in how well a speaker performed. In the smaller rooms the monitors and mid sized speakers sounded best. I was especially amazed at how a huge speaker like the Von Swiekert 9se simply overpowered the room it was in.

There is a point where it simply becomes too much for the room.

E-Stat
11-05-2006, 06:00 PM
Very good, but overkill. (like the whole setup)
ALL of his systems are overkill. That's why it's fun to hear them!


14" is kind of slender to get proper seperation from the 20.1s. While I'm sure it sounds great, the 3.6's would better fit the room better.
That was a quick estimate and may be wrong. I think he calls that Room #1. I know he has documented the room sizes somewhere. He had that same pair of 20.1s initially in the small middle room before he put together the MC rig.

I don't disagree about room size, but bipolars are somewhat less fussy in that regard to me than direct radiators.

rw

Geoffcin
11-06-2006, 04:23 AM
ALL of his systems are overkill. That's why it's fun to hear them!
rw

It's got to be somewhat of an intense experiance eh?


I don't disagree about room size, but bipolars are somewhat less fussy in that regard to me than direct radiators.
rw

Yes, I agree, it all has to do with bass loading. Panels don't overload a room, especially when you can adjust bass by wall distance. Still, with a system like that that in a limited size room, there's got to be only one "perfect" spot for listening.

jrhymeammo
08-09-2007, 06:53 PM
^^^ Yes. I'm on hour five now, and I'm still astonished by this amp. It is *really* in your face. There are times when the sounds seems to come out of the speakers, grab you by the ears, and smack you around like a $20 whore.

I keep expecting myself to say, "OK, I've had enough of this now, I want something normal sounding again." But it hasn't happened yet!

And it isn't just the bass, it's the highs too. This thing is 100 lbs of pure muscle. And yes, it really does weigh 100 lbs (45 kg for those of you living in countries smart enough to adopt the metric system.)

I can see how this wouldn't be for everyone though. I'm pretty sure my Mom wouldn't like it.
I would love to hear your impressions now that it's been well over 2 days with your system.

I'm really enjoying my music thru 1.6QR, but.......
I just need a bit more slam, but I'm not about to integrate some $2K REL sub into my system.
My room is about 12 x 15 with 8' of extra space behind my listening positions with some 5' of extra space to one side of the room.
Well here it is again... I just need a bit more slam. It's like.."&*(%&*#" I just need a bit more edge of slam on the lower end. I defintely dont have enough funds to upgrade to a pair of 3.6 but would like to know what I'll be able to accomplish by moving up. Am I retarded for thinking about of moving up already? I'm still looking to get a pair of XLR likes of Kimber KCGA and there are other areas where I need to fine tune, but I'm not sure if amps like Krell could offer me what I'm trying to resolve... Any thoughts /opinions from present/previous 1.6QR owners would be appreciated.

JRA

Mike Anderson
10-27-2008, 07:15 PM
Still got 'em, still love 'em!

audio amateur
10-28-2008, 03:49 AM
Still got 'em, still love 'em!
Glad to hear it! I'd love a pair of 3.6's myself...