What speakers to use with vacuum tube amplifier? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : What speakers to use with vacuum tube amplifier?



Stereo Fanatic
08-18-2007, 01:49 AM
I am interested in buying the Cayin A-50T integrated vacuum tube amplifier, after I have listened to one combined with a set of B&W's 705 speakers, at a store recently. The sound was really awesome, though the set-up in the store was not perfect to get the best sound distribution. I need some further advice on other sets of speakers and output requirements that will also combine well with the Cayin A-50T. Amplifier's power output: 2 x 35W (8Ω, ultralinear), 2 x 16W (8Ω, triode).
Music preference: classical music, instrumentals and folk. Price range: Up to $2,500.

pixelthis
08-22-2007, 01:01 AM
I am interested in buying the Cayin A-50T integrated vacuum tube amplifier, after I have listened to one combined with a set of B&W's 705 speakers, at a store recently. The sound was really awesome, though the set-up in the store was not perfect to get the best sound distribution. I need some further advice on other sets of speakers and output requirements that will also combine well with the Cayin A-50T. Amplifier's power output: 2 x 35W (8Ω, ultralinear), 2 x 16W (8Ω, triode).
Music preference: classical music, instrumentals and folk. Price range: Up to $2,500.
Speakers are totally subjective, but I am wondering, what is wrong with the b&ws?
You know, that great sound might have been the b&w loudspeakers, not the amp.
I dislike tube amps, I make no bones about it, I dont listen to them and I dont ride a horse to work.
But if you do get it get efficent speakers, My first receiver was a two channel 35 watt yamaha, 35 watts is not bad really, but a lot of larger speakers will need more
in order to keep from clipping.
I listened to some Vienna speakers once, they sounded quite musical, just be sure to losten for a long time as you will have these speakers for a long time (my current set of B&w speakers are five to seven years old, and I have had speakers for two DECADES
or more)

RGA
08-22-2007, 04:37 AM
For $600.00US try and find an Audio Note AX Two loudspeaker. Directly compare it to the B&W 705 -- not much of a horserace. Don't let the price fool you. A lot of marketing money and advert space and colour brochures you need to pay for. (I'm an ex B&W owner). There are other loudspeakers of course but the AX Two is my favorite under $1k and I intend to buy 3 sets of them in the future. They are hand built in Denmark and shipped all the way here so do try to do a side by side comparison -- the looks are plain jane but if you look past that you really will wonder why the prices are not reversed!

If you are going tubes you need to buy speakers designed for tubes and it really is that simple. So it boils down to do you like the sound of the B&W or the sound of the tube amp? The B&W's can be helped greatly by tube amps but they do not get an automatic free pass as automatically being superior just because they have tubes. I like some SS amps over Tube amps and certainly some speakers really do work better with SS.

I personally dislike what B&W has become over the last several years.

Feanor
08-22-2007, 09:30 AM
RGA is an Audio Note shill, but still, if you're located anywhere near an AN dealer their models would be worth a listen.

More conventional, bookshelf alternatives =< $2500 would include:

B&W 705
Paradigm Signature S2
PSB Platinum M2These all fall in the 89-91 dB sensitivity range which should be just fine in a small-medium room with a 35 wpc tube amp listening to accoustic music.

Jimmy C
08-22-2007, 12:25 PM
...betcha forget about the B&Ws in a New York minute!

I have their least-expensive offering (Twins Signatures - $1295), but these have positively renewed my love for listening to pre-recorded music. Do they have the deepest bass I have ever heard? No. Do they have a vast soundstage like the best of Logans I've heard? No... err, uhh... no speaker will be able to do that in my small/medium living room :*) Are they the best at doing explosions on T2? Nope. BUT - if you want a piano to sound like a actual-sized piano (with weight), the proper attack/decay of cymbals, and just a general "correctness", I would consider.

In your price range, you would be up to the Arpeggione (floor-standing model of mine) and the Cantibile on a budget stretch. haven't heard either of those, but I trust Bob Neill at Amherstaudio.com.

Then again, DON'T stretch yer budget... the stock market just lost 1000 due to credit woes. Stick with the Twins and keep my retirement going ;^)

Whoomp! There it is...

drseid
08-22-2007, 02:07 PM
You may want to consider seeking out a used pair of Sonus Faber Grand Piano Homes (they go for about $2200/pr. used). These sound fantastic with the music genres you are interested in, and they are tube freindly IMO.

---Dave

Mr Peabody
08-22-2007, 07:02 PM
Amherst is also an Audio Note dealer :)

Good suggestions. If you are getting that amp, you should go with a speaker over 90dB sensitivity.

Martin Logan's would be a chore for the Cayin, but they are my favorite speakers with tube amps. I wish I had the room for a pair. ML's with tubes give the ultimate presence, it's scary.

PeruvianSkies
08-22-2007, 07:11 PM
RGA is an Audio Note shill, but still, if you're located anywhere near an AN dealer their models would be worth a listen.

More conventional, bookshelf alternatives =< $2500 would include:

B&W 705
Paradigm Signature S2
PSB Platinum M2These all fall in the 89-91 dB sensitivity range which should be just fine in a small-medium room with a 35 wpc tube amp listening to accoustic music.

I would second those choices and maybe throw in something from Totem Acoustics...whatever you do...don't take pixelthis's advice as more than a grain of salt.

jrhymeammo
08-22-2007, 07:43 PM
Welcome to AR forum.

One of the thing I would consider or look into would speakers from Raw Acoustics. DIY kit can be had for cheap. I think it would be more than worth a look.

I enjoyed a pair by Triangles, and love the midrange on them. But the way they present lower frequencies may not be for you. I certainly wasnt for me.
Also, has anyone mentioned speakers by Silverline?

Best Wishes,

JRA

Feanor
08-23-2007, 02:05 AM
I would second those choices and maybe throw in something from Totem Acoustics...whatever you do...don't take pixelthis's advice as more than a grain of salt.

The issue with Totem is that they have significantly lower sensitivity, e.g. 85 dB, so might not be suitable with 35 wpc amps. From what I understand and my own, brief audition they do have appealing sound.

superdougiefreshness
08-23-2007, 02:43 AM
BOSE...............LOL......
.....and welcome to the forum ?..... I think

You should go and call up 1-800-buy-junk and order that wonderful plastic housed, boom box styled, mid range drivers missing, York inspired fake wood grained speakers for your highly acclaimed tube gear....LOL

Oh... be sure to us Sears or J.C. Penny or even better Tandy ........ lets say a good year is 1959-63 for your interconnects.............ok a huge laugh....and well deserved at that.

I am laughing as I type this ...............please forgive my obscene humor........I just simply could not resist........LOL :incazzato: :incazzato: :incazzato: :cornut:

Sometimes true irony :ciappa: is the best & greatest medicine.
& no I have not been drinking.....

I would consider Audio Note speakers......if the sensitivity is a good match......

Also, be sure and ask the dealer who sold you your tubes what the maker suggest is a good pairing for your gear.........????

if you ask they will tell you.
:devil:
Later

RGA
08-23-2007, 04:16 AM
RGA is an Audio Note shill, but still, if you're located anywhere near an AN dealer their models would be worth a listen.

More conventional, bookshelf alternatives =< $2500 would include:

B&W 705
Paradigm Signature S2
PSB Platinum M2These all fall in the 89-91 dB sensitivity range which should be just fine in a small-medium room with a 35 wpc tube amp listening to accoustic music.

This from Mr. Bel Canto.

Feanor
08-23-2007, 05:28 AM
This from Mr. Bel Canto.

Bel Canto is in my past, RGA. (You're out of touch.) Nowadays I shill Monarchy. And in that regard I say when you've got S/S like this, who needs tubes? Well, my latest preamp does have tubes, so ... maybe they do have some application :confused5:
...

topspeed
08-23-2007, 05:40 PM
The 703's, when tested by TAS, weren't real happy with tube amps, especially OTL's. Considering the 705's use the same motor structures, it's very likely they won't be enjoy a tube front end as well, especially something as petit as the A-50. Whether you like the sound of the B&W's or not, this does not look like a synergistic match.

You need something with high sensitivity and easy driveability. Nothing with wild impedence swings or 85dB ratings. AN would make a good choice, so would Von Schwiekert VR2's (hey, if RGA can shill AN and Feanor can shill Monarchy, I can shill VSA!).

Why are you married to the A-50? Romanced by the tubes or do you really like the sound of it? Remember, the speakers will have a far greater affect on perceived sound than the amp will. This is why it's better, IMO, to choose speakers first and then find a suitable amp to drive them with. It's easier, too :).

RGA
08-23-2007, 08:48 PM
Feaner - I guess my one notedness is different in that in 5 years I have nto changed gear like some change underwear.

Topspeed.

There is two approaches - buy the speakers first is one and be forced to live with whatever amps have enough power. But that limits your selection of amplifiers. There are thousands of speakers out there - it would make more sense to purchase loudspeakers of HE so that your amplifier choice is huge. Especially if you believe the SET sounds the best -- then HE makes even more sense. I can run 5 watts or 1000 watt amps. Why would I want a speaker that I am forced to dump all SETs most tubes and some of the best SS amps like Sugden as well as most all Digital amps. Those kinds of speakers are terribly limiting and they usually never offer sound quality that is better or even as good.

E-Stat
08-24-2007, 07:10 AM
I need some further advice on other sets of speakers and output requirements that will also combine well with the Cayin A-50T. Amplifier's power output: 2 x 35W (8Ω, ultralinear), 2 x 16W (8Ω, triode).

Hmmm. From my experience, you're approaching the question from the wrong direction. I have always found it better to start with the speaker and then determine what's required to drive it. I use tube and solid state alike, although the most realistic I've heard is clearly tube. Unfortunately, not all speakers work optimally with their high source impedance.


Music preference: classical music, instrumentals and folk. Price range: Up to $2,500.
Have you considered planars like the Magnepan 1.6 or even the MMG (has a 60 day in home trial)? Given that you prefer acoustic music (as do I), you might find them to your liking. That has been the case with me since I first heard Magneplanar Tympanis back in the 70s. I find that large bipolars are capable of creating a realistically sized and well defined acoustic space. Unfortunately, those Maggies really need more power than the Cayin's output. Down sides are they also need some room to breathe because of their bipolar radiation. They need a couple of feet minimum from the back wall in order to do their stuff. Also, their bass response is limited to about 40 hz. The result, however, can be wonderful IMHO. Both of the baby Maggies are simply killer buys for the money.

rw

RGA
08-24-2007, 07:36 AM
Estat

I agree with if you were talking about the Quad 989 but the Maggie 1.6 and MMG really are not even in the ballpark. Have you actually heard them or going by reviews. I gather you are an electrostat owner and I like a lot of the 1.6 but IMO they have some serious problems that need to be recognized. The 1.6 has a treble brightness factor - two dimensional sound, has weak bass, does not sound visceral in any credible way, and can't play very loud.

I don't no but the 989 convinced me as to why people like panels the 1.6 convinced me that it does some things quite well for a $2k Cad speaker but I doubt I could live with it for any music long term. Just personal opinion but I'd sooner by a used Stat. And even the Maggie diehards I met a few years ago in person and on forums like these have left them.

No knock just a cautionary note that if one listens to a wide array of music the 1.6 probably isn't going to do it and the MMG certainly isn't.

How much would a used 989 go for? It may actually be the better approach if panels are the preference.

E-Stat
08-24-2007, 09:17 AM
I agree with if you were talking about the Quad 989 but the Maggie 1.6 and MMG really are not even in the ballpark.
Hardly a fair comparison between a $9000 speaker and that of $1800 or $600 ones. For that investment, I'd prefer Sound Lab M-3s anyway.


Have you actually heard them or going by reviews.
I've listened to quite a range of Magneplanar products since the mid 70s - from Tympani 1-Us, Tympani IIIs, MG-IIs (owned a pair), MG-IIIs, SMGs, 1.6s, 3.6s, and 20.1s. I've heard 1.6s along with 3.6s and 20.1s at Seacliff in HP's Super Maggie system. Not everyone will drive them with $50k of front end gear, but they are worthy. Almost bought a pair of 20.1s myself.


I gather you are an electrostat owner...
I have used full range electrostats for thirty years. Currently, I run Sound Lab U-1s (http://soundlab-speakers.com/u1px.htm) (although not with the latest PX cores).


... but IMO they have some serious problems that need to be recognized. The 1.6 has a treble brightness factor - two dimensional sound, has weak bass, does not sound visceral in any credible way, and can't play very loud.
My experience is quite different from yours, likely based upon different front ends and rooms. Brightness is usually indicative of either or both an unbroken in pair or improper room setup / treatment. If you still find them bright, they are supplied with resistors to attenuate the tweeter - unlike most modern speakers that have no such standard provision. Two dimensional? That is a function of system and setup. As for bass, I'll take the uniform mid-bass accuracy of them any day over a box given my listening priorities. As I acknowledged earlier, they are only good down to about 40 hz.


And even the Maggie diehards I met a few years ago in person and on forums like these have left them.
Visit MUG over at AA and you will find a quite a few enthusiasts.


No knock just a cautionary note that if one listens to a wide array of music the 1.6 probably isn't going to do it and the MMG certainly isn't.
Perhaps you should reread the section regarding the poster's musical tastes. If he were an acid rock freak seeking 100+ db output, I would readily agree

rw

Feanor
08-24-2007, 10:32 AM
Hardly a fair comparison between a $9000 speaker and that of $1800 or $600 ones. For that investment, I'd prefer Sound Lab M-3s anyway.

I've listened to quite a range of Magneplanar products since the mid 70s - from Tympani 1-Us, Tympani IIIs, MG-IIs (owned a pair), MG-IIIs, SMGs, 1.6s, 3.6s, and 20.1s. I've heard 1.6s along with 3.6s and 20.1s at Seacliff in HP's Super Maggie system. Not everyone will drive them with $50k of front end gear, but they are worthy. Almost bought a pair of 20.1s myself.
...

My experience is quite different from yours, likely based upon different front ends and rooms. Brightness is usually indicative of either or both an unbroken in pair or improper room setup / treatment. If you still find them bright, they are supplied with resistors to attenuate the tweeter - unlike most modern speakers that have no such standard provision. Two dimensional? That is a function of system and setup. As for bass, I'll take the uniform mid-bass accuracy of them any day over a box given my listening priorities. As I acknowledged earlier, they are only good down to about 40 hz.
...
Perhaps you should reread the section regarding the poster's musical tastes. If he were an acid rock freak seeking 100+ db output, I would readily agree

rw

To put is succinctly, RGA's MG 1.6 apparisal is so conditioned by the obviously suboptimal conditions in which he auditioned them and by his own music & sound preferences, that it is essentially useless.

RGA rarely qualifies his endorsements of Audio Note with mention of his personal tastes. However, having read read his input for years, a couple of observations are fair, IMO:

RGA's music preferences run to amplified music predominently; (I didn't say exclusively). He once stated the Trance was a favorite of his. (Trance !??! :crazy: )
Not surprisingly he puts a high value on "PRaT" and strong, loud bass output.Of course, my opinion is corrupted by the fact that I am Maggie 1.6 owner. Neverthless I shall say that I can't think of a better speaker for US$1900 for accoustic music.

PeruvianSkies
08-24-2007, 11:30 AM
I didn't know that you liked Electrostats....I just thought your name came because you liked statistics...lol!!!!!!!! J/k. (see: sarcasm)

Anyhoo....

Is the original poster concerned about space or WAF factors? What is the room size, etc etc. We need more information before pointing the right direction.

musicman1999
08-24-2007, 01:29 PM
I heard a set of Focal Profile 908's with tube gear and they sounded wonderful.Focal speakers and tubes usually make a good combo.

bill

nightflier
08-24-2007, 02:00 PM
Bel Canto is in my past, RGA. (You're out of touch.) Nowadays I shill Monarchy. And in that regard I say when you've got S/S like this, who needs tubes? Well, my latest preamp does have tubes, so ... maybe they do have some application :confused5:
...

And these don't even have 12v triggers! LOL.

Regarding panel speakers, granted, my experience has only been with the MMG, but the very things that I noticed about them were pretty much in line with what RGA was mentioning. Now I've only heard the smallest ones, but I did given them at least 50 hours to burn in, and never heard them improve much, if at all. I would love to hear the bigger speakers, but I would never have room for them in my house, which also brings up the room that the original poster has for speakers, and any WAF concerns.

For the Cayin amp, I was actually going to suggest something entirely different: Klipsch Heresy III, sold at Acoustic Sounds for $1500, or if he wants something a little up the range, how about a pair of used Cornwalls or La Scalas? Personally I've been turned off by Klipsch's lower end speakers because of how bright they sound, but I've been told that the bigger speakers do sound very good.

The irony of all this is that an ideal match for a tube amp is a horned speaker, both of which are sort of outdated now a days. Funny thing is they certainly are not priced as if they were outdated! I would love to hear a pair of Avantguarde horns in my home someday, but aside from the space issues, the price is the biggest hurdle.

topspeed
08-24-2007, 02:01 PM
There is two approaches - buy the speakers first is one and be forced to live with whatever amps have enough power. But that limits your selection of amplifiers. There are thousands of speakers out there - it would make more sense to purchase loudspeakers of HE so that your amplifier choice is huge. Especially if you believe the SET sounds the best -- then HE makes even more sense. I can run 5 watts or 1000 watt amps. Why would I want a speaker that I am forced to dump all SETs most tubes and some of the best SS amps like Sugden as well as most all Digital amps. Those kinds of speakers are terribly limiting and they usually never offer sound quality that is better or even as good.

First off, welcome back RGA. Hope Korea treated you well.

Now then, my contention is simple: Different speakers will show more disparity in sound than different amps, regardless of topology. Do all amps sound alike? Of course not. However, the percentage of variance is far less than between a pair of Maggie 1.6qr's and Von Schweikert VR2's, both of which are around $2K yet sound dramatically different. Therefore, it is more important to find the right speaker before your find the right amp. If your speaker happens to be HE, good on ya! If not, no biggie...just find the correct amp to push the load.

Oh btw, most switching amps are load invariant and love difficult loads such as the 989.

This is all moot anyways, guys. The OP appears to be a Hit n' Run.

jtgofish
08-24-2007, 03:24 PM
The brutal truth is that very few speakers sound their best with tube amps.Find the right combination of tubes and speakers though and the result can be hard to beat.
I can understand RGAs enthusiasm for this type of system and frustration at people not grasping the subtleties of tube amp matching.

People who say they do not like tube amps have probably never heard them with the right speakers.
A great starter speaker for anybody entering into the tube amp world is the old Klipsch KG4.These are cheap second hand but can sound superb with tube amps.I used to run mine with Leak Stereo 20 and Lux KMQ7 but with a modern SET they would be superb.
They MUST be stand mounted though by removing the timber skirts on the speaker base.On the floor they sound pretty crap.

Mr Peabody
08-24-2007, 05:22 PM
My Stat experience has only been Maggie and Martin Logan. Even one of the large pairs of Maggies driven by Levinson didn't come close to the excellence of ML. What is your opinion of ML, E-stat? Maggies aren't my cup of tea but they would not be bad for acoustic and Classical for the money with the amp to drive them.

I would seldom recommend Klipsch for anything but especially not for Classical. Their sound stage is horrible. I have not heard Klipsch's classec monster's, the Horns or Cornwall but I've heard several pair and have yet to meet a pair that I could tolerate.

RGA, If AN is a great sounding high sensitivity speaker, it would be the only one I'd be aware of in an affordable range. There are a host of excellent speakers to choose from that are below 88dB. That has always been a barrier for me to even consider SET. It doesn't make sense to buy a great sounding low power amp to only have limited speaker choice at best.

jim goulding
08-24-2007, 06:25 PM
I'm happy to follow Mr. Pea but you better stick with dynamic designs, you know, box speakers- not planers, cause you'll get higher SPL's with your 50 watt amp. A couple of things that should be in your criteria . .

uno)- your speakers shouldn't go below 4 ohms
dos)- they should be 87 plus db efficiency (sometimes mfg's are not
always honest about either of these (see if you can find a review that
includes measurements)
trese)- Sam Tellig likes tubes and likes efficient speakers with them and frequently reviews them in his column in Stereophile (he
owns Triangles) check their archives
quattro)- small box speakers tend to less efficient that large ones
cinco)- Audiogon is a good place to buy used speakers (most of the cats
on this site take care of their stuff) but some may have been purchased
used already so ask questions

This stuff is fun, huh. That Cayin has had some good press.

RGA
08-25-2007, 04:00 AM
The brutal truth is that very few speakers sound their best with tube amps.Find the right combination of tubes and speakers though and the result can be hard to beat.
I can understand RGAs enthusiasm for this type of system and frustration at people not grasping the subtleties of tube amp matching.

People who say they do not like tube amps have probably never heard them with the right speakers.
A great starter speaker for anybody entering into the tube amp world is the old Klipsch KG4.These are cheap second hand but can sound superb with tube amps.I used to run mine with Leak Stereo 20 and Lux KMQ7 but with a modern SET they would be superb.
They MUST be stand mounted though by removing the timber skirts on the speaker base.On the floor they sound pretty crap.

It's funny you mention the KG4 -- back in the day when I was firts buying loudspeakers this was the runner up to what I did purchase - the Wharfedale Vanguard which was the speaker that replaced the classic E-70. The Wharfedale is 95db sensitive using a ringdac horn and runs mostly in the 10 ohm range. At that time before ever hearing a tube amp my favorite amp was the Sugden A21a. This amp I would later find out is a SET - Single Ended Topology pure class A.

The Wharfedales have plenty of problems so does the Klipsch but what they offer in speed dynamics and visceral scale is almost absent from the vast majority of new loudspeakers that may very well image better but in live music nobody pays attention to imaging or soundstaging but tonality and timbral accuracy and I dare say the music itself.

But since virtually everything in stores today do not have a single set-up that is even LIKE what an AN system offers up (SET/HE) then it is impossible to have a conversation on the subject - you can't even find speakers like the Wharfedale and Klipshes anymore not even from them unless you count the heritage line but so few places carry those.

Most Higher end dealers carry 2-4 speaker lines and mostly it goes something along the following:

They carry a budget line like a Wharfedale, Boston Acoustics, Paradigm. Then they will carry some sort of upscale brand like Sonus Faber. Then they will carry the complete line from say a B&W which is what dealers like best because you can start from $400.00 to $15,000.00. This they usually hard sell because it offers clear upscale paths and it's easier to take back on trades.

Conversely dealers dislike SET because they are a pain in the ass usually do not come with remotes and usually have a high price of entry. Audio Note for example starts at around $2500.00 for an amp and that is simply not going to be something a dealer in say Winnipeg is going to want to carry. I know a guy who thinks it's the best stuff around but it would bankrupt him to carry a line especially when the company wants you to carry a complete line of gear (turntables, DACs, transports, speakers, cables, stands etc).

It is far easier to carry mainstream feature friendly SS stuff from an import country and then get people to believe it's so much better than a Japanese receiver. It is often only marginally better but...

But hey I offer the suggestion they can toss it if they wish -- no big deal AN can't keep up with the orders anyway.

RGA
08-25-2007, 04:14 AM
RGA, If AN is a great sounding high sensitivity speaker, it would be the only one I'd be aware of in an affordable range. There are a host of excellent speakers to choose from that are below 88dB. That has always been a barrier for me to even consider SET. It doesn't make sense to buy a great sounding low power amp to only have limited speaker choice at best.

Actually living in Korea has opened my eyes - The high end dealers here carry massive high efficiency speakers and big tubes - despite the fact that these Koreans have tiny homes - even the rich ones. And I have found a number of very good speakers - the Tannoy Kensington is easy to drive and is ver nice sounding as is most of their heritage line.

Yes the GOOD HE speakers tend to be expensive but generally that is true of most things in life.

If there is any single poster on an internet forum who WAS in a similar boat as you are now with your post to me and who owns a similar SS system it is Kevin F on AA. His entry with Audio Note came with a DAC and he kept saying the same things you are until he got a system to TRY. Does not hurt to try right? The AN Dacs measure about as bad as it gets int he CD arena and yet...
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=345133&review=1

E-Stat
08-25-2007, 07:19 AM
My Stat experience has only been Maggie and Martin Logan. Even one of the large pairs of Maggies driven by Levinson didn't come close to the excellence of ML. What is your opinion of ML, E-stat? Maggies aren't my cup of tea but they would not be bad for acoustic and Classical for the money with the amp to drive them.
My first experience with Martin-Logan goes back to the late seventies when a friend of mine replaced his Dayton-Wrights (which got me interested w/stats in the first place) with a pair of CLSes. They were very open sounding with better top end than the D-Ws, but somewhat lacking in low bass. No beaming like the Acoustats I had at the time. Great speaker. Over the years, however, M-L has moved away from full range designs and now focus on hybrids using cone woofers for the bottom. For me, that defeats their most important attribute - unmatched top to bottom coherence. No matter how well you do it, matching dissimilar drivers is always a challenge. Especially when one tries to match an electrostat whose mass that is less than the air it moves with that of a dynamic woofer that is comparatively massive. There is a special way that full range stats reproduce something like a piano - or voice that continues to endear them to me, where most speakers must use multiple drivers with necessarily different radiation patterns to achieve the same goal. BTW, Maggies are not stats. While they are planar in design and radiate as dipolars, they are driven by a series of bar magnets spaced across the diaphragm. Like cone speakers where the force is centered on the voice coil (but to a lesser degree), they rely on the diaphragm stiffness to distribute the driving force. The electrostatic force, however, is driven uniformly across the entire diaphragm and results in a singular purity. Dr. West said at a Chicago Audio Society meeting that he has devoted his life to making music from sandwich wrap.

The other characteristic I favor with large planars, electrostat or otherwise, is they are line sources. Vertical dispersion of electrostats is virtually nil, but rendered unnecessary when the array is seven or more feet tall. The image does not change at all when one stands up. The size of the apparent sound field can be most realistic. I have yet to hear any speaker using a one inch tweeter effectively create the illusion of an entire sound stage. A whole bunch of them in a vertical array like the Pipedreams designs, yes - but not a single driver.

rw

Mr Peabody
08-25-2007, 08:23 AM
Maggies use a ribbon tweeter so wouldn't they have effectively the same driver matching problem as ML with there woofers? The matching of ML's dynamic drivers to the panel has been a criticism but newer models have improved in that area. They now have the models with the built in amp for the woofer. These aren't cheap but could be a good match for a lower powered tube amp.

E-Stat
08-25-2007, 11:08 AM
Maggies use a ribbon tweeter so wouldn't they have effectively the same driver matching problem as ML with there woofers?
There is a substantial difference between transitioning the ultra fast electrostatic panels directly to a cone woofer at 270 hz than from a ribbon tweeter to a quasi ribbon midrange planar driver in the 3k range.


The matching of ML's dynamic drivers to the panel has been a criticism but newer models have improved in that area.
While I am most certainly an electrostatic fan, more specifically I value broadband coherence. Naturally, I believe full range stats are the ultimate expression of that idea. I would most likely prefer, however, a Magneplanar approach to that of a M-L because of the transition issues. The Maggie sound is more consistent from top to bottom than a hybrid stat IMHO. It is for that reason my second choice in speakers would have been the MG-20.1. They are superb loudspeakers with no need for dynamic woofers.

rw

RGA
08-25-2007, 04:50 PM
Maggies use a ribbon tweeter so wouldn't they have effectively the same driver matching problem as ML with there woofers? The matching of ML's dynamic drivers to the panel has been a criticism but newer models have improved in that area. They now have the models with the built in amp for the woofer. These aren't cheap but could be a good match for a lower powered tube amp.

The ML design offers some advantages over what I have heard from Maggie and Quad etc. One is bass depth and the ability to play more music in a visceral way - and of course for home theater. ML has realized that a dynamic woofer is the only real way to get visceral powerful bass depth and be able to play it at loud enough levels to make most music have presence, for "practical size." Most people do not live in mansions so while some massive panels can provide bass most of the average sized ones simply do not.

Advantage 2 is that the ML is friendlier to multiple listeners and while the vertical image may be good the horizontal is terrible which is why Maggie and Quad et al are head in the vice speakers - move your head over to the left or right an inch or two and the noticeable sound shift is very great (and I heard the set-up set-up by Maggie engineers themselves so none of this -- they were poorly set-up with weak amp assumptions business). I assume the curved panel is to allow for a larger listening window but it may also be screwing up the frequency response in the upper midrange.

I prefer the 989, and the line they carry in Korea that are not hybrids over the ML's and Maggies. I recommend the 1.6 for audition -- I certainly understand the appeal -- it is the same price as say the B&W604S3. Both of which several of us got to hear at the same location with plenty of power to both. The Maggie offers up a less coloured, less boxy, sound with terrific imaging and soundstaging. Nevertheless if rock,pop, is on the agenda with some desire to rock the house then the 604 blows the maggie out of the water. That's the problem for me. One can talk all day about acoustic music but that is not the only thing on the agenda - if it is great but if not they are incredibly music dependent speakers.

The owner of Soundhounds even said that when he lets customers listen to Maggie he makes sure as to WHAT gets played because they are so stupifyingly lousy with a lot of music that he has to keep the titles handpicked. Since I was not in the market he illustrated the point. But at the same time when he put the live opera piece on and you sit directly in the middle and don't move your head you can hear the singer walking across the stage from right to left extremely realistically and instruments everywhere else were very real indeed. If this is your thing it was truly exceptional. Even the Quad 989 which I have found to be the best musically sounding panel of all of the ones I have heard largely because I find the ribbons to not sound as good in the treble (with great set-ups and top rated amps) -- but even then it's not great in the bottom end nor does it extend particularly well in the treble. I find my boxes to be more open, visceral, better in the bass, and able to create the realistic pressurization of instruments than the Quad at 3 times the price. But the boxes do resonate and bass strong speakers will have a different kind of colouration than panels.

What are the trade-offs you can live with is the key question to ask yourself and ultimately what I have to give up in panels I can't live with BUT this feeling is reversed obviously for those who love panels.

Mr Peabody
08-25-2007, 04:51 PM
Well, I lean the other direction, any difference in matching with the ML's weren't noticeable to me and I prefer their sound much more than Maggie.

RGA, I am actually using all tube gear now, My AN DAC runs into a CJ pv14-ls pre and that into a pair of mono mv60's. Mono the mv60 is at about 100 watts and uses el34's.

RGA
08-25-2007, 05:09 PM
Well, I lean the other direction, any difference in matching with the ML's weren't noticeable to me and I prefer their sound much more than Maggie.

RGA, I am actually using all tube gear now, My AN DAC runs into a CJ pv14-ls pre and that into a pair of mono mv60's. Mono the mv60 is at about 100 watts and uses el34's.

Well you are part of the way there Mr. Peabody hahahaha -- just a bit further and Kevin F's happiness could be yours:7:

Seriously though if you do not notice the driver integration issue with ML (and the new ones may well be better) then it's a consideration.

I like that my dealer carries Quad, Magnepan and ML, Audio Note, B&W DIamonds, Paradigms etc. For me I want to hear speakers against a good sampling of what is considered the best. One can quibble over one panel being better than another or instead of the Diamonds they should carry Sonus Faber etc but few dealers carry a large amount of gear. I like Korea for this where there are about 25 high end shops on one floor. You can listen to one set-up and then walk 10 feet to what the other guy is touting.

My salesguy owned the 20.1 for four years so I get further insight with them pro/con. It's interesting that this hobby is so hugely polarizing. You have entire panel forums - you have HE speaker and horn forums etc World's apart in approach and sound, both with their technical experts and views that their way is the right way. Really does boil down to trying it all for yourself and trying to put the external factors out of the equation

Rochlin may be right -- in the end just enjoythemusic.

bobsticks
08-26-2007, 04:04 PM
(noting that yet again the conversation moves toward untenable propositions)

Stereo fanatic, if you're still out there give the AN's or the VSA's a try. If you can find a pair the Cain & Cain Abbeys do great with low-to-medium wattage tube amps.

jrhymeammo
08-28-2007, 08:05 PM
Coincident Speakers have series of efficient speaekers with easy load. I've read that they are not as effcient as stated 97dBs, but I dont think you'll ever have trouble driving them with amps higher than 8 watts.

Also, dont get too caught up in speakers' sensitivity, but focus more on impendence load and its stability. They'll all have swings, but tubes would prefer to drive a steady 4ohm load instead of some 16 ohm speakers with huge dips.


JRA