Integrated amp for magneplanar 1.6s

[GaryG]

Any recommendations for a used integrated amp for magneplanar 1.6s for $500 or so? The NAD C372 comes highly recommended, but I haven't seen many for sale. Other options?

Thanks

[Feanor]

Any recommendations for a used integrated amp for magneplanar 1.6s for $500 or so? The NAD C372 comes highly recommended, but I haven't seen many for sale. Other options?

Thanks
The Magneplanar MG 1.6's are great speakers, IMO, but I'm biased.

I would look for 100+ wpc with these speakers, though a lessor rating might work if you listen only at moderate volumes. $500 is a challenge but there are a few options. Check out Audiogon for used equipment. Here, for example, are links to some amps currently available on that site that might serve, (you might have to bargain):

Onkyo A-9555 (http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307934332&/Onkyo-A-9555)
Musical Fidelity A3.2 (http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307639814&/Musical-Fidelity-A3.2)
NAD C372 (http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307555910&/NAD-C372-integrated-amp)
Arcam A80 (http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307117592&/Arcam-A-80) (80 wpc)

[JoeE SP9]

Get a used Adcom GFA-545II and a GFP-555 from Audiogon. Total cost less than $500.

[blackraven]

Like Feanor said, if you like to listen to music at moderately loud levels then go with an amp with 100+ wpc and make sure it is rated at 4 ohms. Used adcom separates as mentioned previously are the way to go as are used NAD.

You may want to take a look at used Cambridge Audio 740A and 840A integrated amps as well.

[bobsticks]

I'd add the Marantz PM8001 or Rotel 1080 (used) to the audition list.

[hifi-freak]

You can also take a look at the NAD C370 which have plenty of power, easy to use, remote, well built etc.
They are around $270 on ebay.

[blackraven]

You may also want to consider this emotiva amp and then look for a used preamp. There are several Adcom, B&K, NAD preamps for sale on audiogon.com

http://emotiva.com/upa2.shtm

[markw]

Second the emotiva. Maggies love lots of available power, even at moderate levels.

[GaryG]

Thanks for everybody's suggestions.

I should have added more info about my setup. I'm currently pushing the 1.6s with a BK ST-140 amp, which supplies about 105 wpc into 8 ohms (no stats on 4 ohms). For quieter music folk, jazz, solo piano), it's fantastic, but it seems underpowered for certain "busier" music, for lack of a better word. I lose that wonderful maggie clarity and spaciousness. So, how much of a jump in power do I need to hear a noticeable difference. Something like the NAD C372?

Thanks again, Gary

[Feanor]

Thanks for everybody's suggestions.

I should have added more info about my setup. I'm currently pushing the 1.6s with a BK ST-140 amp, which supplies about 105 wpc into 8 ohms (no stats on 4 ohms). For quieter music folk, jazz, solo piano), it's fantastic, but it seems underpowered for certain "busier" music, for lack of a better word. I lose that wonderful maggie clarity and spaciousness. So, how much of a jump in power do I need to hear a noticeable difference. Something like the NAD C372?

Thanks again, Gary
Your BK has 105 wpc in to 8 ohms and possibly more into 4; the NAD C372 is spec'd to give 150 wpc into 8 or 4 -- this isn't a big difference and isn't likely to give a day<=>night difference based on power only.

I'm assuming the BK ST-140 is an integrated, (can't find it on the BK website)? Does it have Preamp Outs? If so, use it for a preamp and get a ClassDAudio SDS-258 (http://classdaudio.com/products/class-d-audio-kits/sds-258-kit.html) power amp which does 300+ wpc into 4 ohms and sounds great -- much, much better than NAD. (You will need to put it in a case, though.)

[GaryG]

the st140 is a standalone amp... I have a BK preamp that has many issues, so basically i have to update the whole setup. I figured an integrated amp would be more cost effective. In any case, you're basically saying I should double my wpc? Thx

[blackraven]

I went from and adcom 225 wpc amp to a Parasound 400wpc amp with my 1.6's and the difference at loud to moderately loud volumes was dramatic to say the least. The Maggies just became way more dynamic and smooth with more depth to the music. There are plenty of decent used preamps on audiogon in the $150-250 range to pair with an emotiva amp or used amp like an adcom 555 or B & K reference 125.2

[Feanor]

the st140 is a standalone amp... I have a BK preamp that has many issues, so basically i have to update the whole setup. I figured an integrated amp would be more cost effective. In any case, you're basically saying I should double my wpc? Thx
Yes, you'll need to at least double your power to get dynamic improvement. Bear in mind that doubling your power is actually only a 3 dB increase in volume.

Despite recommending the ClassDAudio amp, I also tend to agree with those who recommend Adcom separates. As Blackraven and maybe others have mentioned, the Adcom GFA 555 or better yet the 555II are great amps for the money.

[Poultrygeist]

Don't maggies love push pull tube amps?


http://cgi.ebay.com/YAQIN-MC10L-EL34-Class-Integrated-Valve-Tube-Amp-NR-/320684343633?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aaa46c151

[Feanor]

Don't maggies love push pull tube amps?


http://cgi.ebay.com/YAQIN-MC10L-EL34-Class-Integrated-Valve-Tube-Amp-NR-/320684343633?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aaa46c151
That Yaqin is a very pretty amp and with 52 wpc would probably do for most of my own 1.6 listening -- but for somebody like the Tube Fan likes to listen at 100 dB ... the Yaqin might work in a bi-amp system powering the QR tweeters.

[woofersus]

I would argue that you don't need a ton more power so much as just a better amp. John Atkinson wrote that the 105wpc version of the BK ST-140 incorporated changes (from the original 70wpc version) that removed some of the qualities they liked so much in their original sample. He also said that the changes made it not well suited to speakers that drop below 8ohms impedance. (which the maggies obviously do) It's also worth noting that despite the lack of manufacturer ratings, Stereophile listed them at no higher into a 4 ohm load, which may be partly why they suggest you should use it with easier loads only.

Either way, Magnepan recommends 100wpc and I'd probably try to stay at or above that number, but you don't need 250+ or anything like that. (not that a ton more power is necessarily bad if you happen to find a good deal on it) You could probably be happy with even a little less than 100wpc if you went to tubes.

There are any number of good options, including most suggested here. (UPA2 with preamp, NAD C372, etc.) I have an open box demo Onix XIA-160 dual mono integrated that does 160wpc into 8ohms and 220wpc into 4 and would probably be a nice match to the maggies, but even at nearly half off it would be several times over your stated budget.

[blackraven]

Woofersus, I agree with what you have to say applies to low to moderate volume levels (where most people listen) with Maggies and the type of music played. But at louder levels the Maggies really benefit from higher power, especially with very dynamic music. Extreme transients really benefit from the power. The sound is smoother with more depth. For most music that I listen too at low to moderate volumes, I can't really tell the difference between my 2 amps (except for things like overall tone and resolution). But when I crank it up and play certain classical, jazz and blue's music the difference is night and day. Even when I auditioned the 1.6's at audio perfection here in Minneapolis they benefited from higher power.

[woofersus]

Well I guess there's always the question of volume. Admittedly I rarely breach 100db and it's not all that big a room. (not that I own maggies - I just mean in general)

[Poultrygeist]

I don't understand the fascination with inefficient speakers/high powered amps. The best high power amp by nature of it's complicated circuit design will produce more grain and worse imaging sound stage than the best low powered amp. Low powered amps paired with high efficiency speakers also offer superior dynamics.

It's all about that first watt.

[woofersus]

I tend to agree with that viewpoint, but I don't swing all the way in the other direction either. I think there are also usually compromises involved with super high efficiency speakers that I'm not willing to accept, so I don't usually dig 2w amps with 110db efficient speakers There are lots of good designs on the market that have easy loads and can be driven plenty loud by amps anywhere from 20w-150w.

I do think the 1.6's are good speakers though in general, and 86db while not exactly high efficiency, isn't terrible given the relatively flat impedance curve at 4 ohms. I suppose not every speaker is for every set of listening preferences though.

[Feanor]

I don't understand the fascination with inefficient speakers/high powered amps. The best high power amp by nature of it's complicated circuit design will produce more grain and worse imaging sound stage than the best low powered amp. Low powered amps paired with high efficiency speakers also offer superior dynamics.

It's all about that first watt.
That, sir, is merely a prejudice. Granted, those low power SET's, OTL's, etc., have a unique sound, but that sound is not synonymous with accuracy.

And acknowledging that powerful amps can sound fine, there is no reason to accept the compromises of high efficiency speakers.

[Ajani]

I don't understand the fascination with inefficient speakers/high powered amps. The best high power amp by nature of it's complicated circuit design will produce more grain and worse imaging sound stage than the best low powered amp. Low powered amps paired with high efficiency speakers also offer superior dynamics.

It's all about that first watt.

The other point of view is: who cares whether a speaker is able to produce 100db with 1 Watt, if it sounds like crap?

So unless you find a High efficiency speaker that you like, then whether a SET amp sounds better than a megawatt SS is irrelevant...

Many persons don't like the sound of high efficiency speakers/set amps... Just like high powered amps/low efficiency speakers, they have their own set of compromises...

So the "fascination" is because persons have different tastes than you.

[Poultrygeist]

Here's an interesting read on the subject of high power amps/low efficiency speakers vs low power amps/high efficiency speakers.

http://www.decware.com/paper43.htm

[Feanor]

Here's an interesting read on the subject of high power amps/low efficiency speakers vs low power amps/high efficiency speakers.

http://www.decware.com/paper43.htm
Thanks, Poultry. This article is a very good summary of the conventional arguments in favor of SET's and high-efficiency and single-driver speakers. Anybody unfamiliar with these arguments should read the article. But these conventional arguments include a various truths and a good many half-truths.

One of the truths is, "Not all solid- state amps sound bad."

On the half-truth side is, "A Single Ended Triode is the simplest circuit design there is, using the least number of parts." Yes it is a simple circuit but the tube itself is a relatively complex device that requires precise manufacture. This manufacturing precision is rare today and a lot harder to achieve than with, say, an opamp -- not to mention capacitors and resistors.

Then there are assertions of belief such as, "A good SET amp combined with a single full range driver with no crossover or a simple 2-way using minimal crossover parts on the tweeter only, has a purity and depth that you simply don’t find in more conventional systems. It is a benchmark for coherency, and noted for its ability to create hauntingly real holographic sound stage." The fact is that the a full range dynamic drive cannot deliver the flat reponse, dynamics, or freedom distortion that a limited-range driver can. Ribbons and other planars are definitely capable greater "stunning clarity and detail" than typical dynamic drivers and, certainly, full-range dynamics, yet they usually require high power or are limited range, or both.

The suggestion is made, "The problem here is resolution. If you can’t hit a listening level with the 1st watt, you’re not likely to hear what’s happening in that 1st watt." This is implies that the first watt is necessarily the best and that 100 watts must poor, this just isn't true. It's cetainl not true in case of class B solid state, though of course nobody makes pure class B amps for hifi. But more importantly decent solid state can deliver hundreds of watts with less distortion -- not excluding 3rd and 4th order harmonics -- than those 3 or 8 watt SETs.

More half-truth regarding feedback: "Negative feedback is used to lower distortion specs and in the case of solid state devices it is often the only thing keeping the transistors from exploding all over the inside of your amplifier. Feedback a problem? If you don’t mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it’s probably not." Feedback is necessary in the case of solid-state though controversial. Feedback tends to create high-order distortion harmonic distortuion which might sound worse than lower order, but when feedback is used right, (i.e. limited and locally), the higher order distortion is vanishingly low -- not to mention that the harmonics mostly beyond the audible range.

On the other had SETs and tube in general generate substantial 2nd order and 3rd order distortion. According to most investigators, 2nd distortion sounds pleasant. Personally I strongly suspect that this extra distortion is the principal reason people like sound of tube equipment. It is most likely the reason for the "holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" often attributed to tubes.

IMHO, (one man's opinion), this tube "holographic soundstage" is an artifact of tubes' distortion. The remark, "Feedback a problem? If you don’t mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it’s probably not", is actually the reverse of the truth which is that tubes are artificially creating an effect that isn't on the recording. See my recent thread, here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=36478). If you like the effect, fine: who can argue with personal preference? On the other hand if you believe that you're interested in HIGH FIDELITY, maybe you're kidding yourself.

[Ajani]

Thanks, Poultry. This article is a very good summary of the conventional arguments in favor of SET's and high-efficiency and single-driver speakers. Anybody unfamiliar with these arguments should read the article. But these conventional arguments include a various truths and a good many half-truths.

One of the truths is, "Not all solid- state amps sound bad."

On the half-truth side is, "A Single Ended Triode is the simplest circuit design there is, using the least number of parts." Yes it is a simple circuit but the tube itself is a relatively complex device that requires precise manufacture. This manufacturing precision is rare today and a lot harder to achieve than with, say, an opamp -- not to mention capacitors and resistors.

Then there are assertions of belief such as, "A good SET amp combined with a single full range driver with no crossover or a simple 2-way using minimal crossover parts on the tweeter only, has a purity and depth that you simply don’t find in more conventional systems. It is a benchmark for coherency, and noted for its ability to create hauntingly real holographic sound stage." The fact is that the a full range dynamic drive cannot deliver the flat reponse, dynamics, or freedom distortion that a limited-range driver can. Ribbons and other planars are definitely capable greater "stunning clarity and detail" than typical dynamic drivers and, certainly, full-range dynamics, yet they usually require high power or are limited range, or both.

The suggestion is made, "The problem here is resolution. If you can’t hit a listening level with the 1st watt, you’re not likely to hear what’s happening in that 1st watt." This is implies that the first watt is necessarily the best and that 100 watts must poor, this just isn't true. It's cetainl not true in case of class B solid state, though of course nobody makes pure class B amps for hifi. But more importantly decent solid state can deliver hundreds of watts with less distortion -- not excluding 3rd and 4th order harmonics -- than those 3 or 8 watt SETs.

More half-truth regarding feedback: "Negative feedback is used to lower distortion specs and in the case of solid state devices it is often the only thing keeping the transistors from exploding all over the inside of your amplifier. Feedback a problem? If you don’t mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it’s probably not." Feedback is necessary in the case of solid-state though controversial. Feedback tends to create high-order distortion harmonic distortuion which might sound worse than lower order, but when feedback is used right, (i.e. limited and locally), the higher order distortion is vanishingly low -- not to mention that the harmonics mostly beyond the audible range.

On the other had SETs and tube in general generate substantial 2nd order and 3rd order distortion. According to most investigators, 2nd distortion sounds pleasant. Personally I strongly suspect that this extra distortion is the principal reason people like sound of tube equipment. It is most likely the reason for the "holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" often attributed to tubes.

IMHO, (one man's opinion), this tube "holographic soundstage" is an artifact of tubes' distortion. The remark, "Feedback a problem? If you don’t mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it’s probably not", is actually the reverse of the truth which is that tubes are artificially creating an effect that isn't on the recording. See my recent thread, here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=36478). If you like the effect, fine: who can argue with personal preference? On the other hand if you believe that you're interested in HIGH FIDELITY, maybe you're kidding yourself.

All good points, but one correction... Naim makes pure Class B amps for HiFi... So at least one company does...

[Feanor]

All good points, but one correction... Naim makes pure Class B amps for HiFi... So at least one company does...
That's interesting. I suppose class B will work if you have sufficiently fast transistors, so for example I think MOSFETs are typically faster than bi-polars. What matters is that the one-time buggaboo, notch distortion, has been effectively eliminated as a cause of s/s distortion and bad sound.

[E-Stat]

I don't understand the fascination with inefficient speakers/high powered amps.
The choice of speaker drives amplifier choice.


The best high power amp by nature of it's complicated circuit design will produce more grain and worse imaging sound stage than the best low powered amp.
While some high powered amps have complicated circuits (especially pro amps), many don't.

rw

[RGA]

On the other had SETs and tube in general generate substantial 2nd order and 3rd order distortion. According to most investigators, 2nd distortion sounds pleasant. Personally I strongly suspect that this extra distortion is the principal reason people like sound of tube equipment. It is most likely the reason for the "holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" often attributed to tubes.

IMHO, (one man's opinion), this tube "holographic soundstage" is an artifact of tubes' distortion. The remark, "Feedback a problem? If you don’t mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it’s probably not", is actually the reverse of the truth which is that tubes are artificially creating an effect that isn't on the recording. See my recent thread, here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=36478). If you like the effect, fine: who can argue with personal preference? On the other hand if you believe that you're interested in HIGH FIDELITY, maybe you're kidding yourself.

The problem is that you are making an assumption on a fact that doesn't really support the assumption.

Okay. So we see a measurement plot that says amp A has 5% of a type of distortion that amp B does not have at all. So you say that amp A has all these wonderful things like "holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" often attributed to tubes." But you are now making the "leap" that the ONLY reason that the amp generates these wonderful sounding attributes is SOLELY and ENTIRELY based on the distortion figures.

What you have not considered and may very well be equally true and there is no hard evidence either way is that the amp here may in fact be "accurately" resolving "ALL" of these traits from the recordings by the nature of the design such as"holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" but that they are ALSO adding the 2nd order and third order harmonics.

In other words the great tube amp may be giving you 95% of what is on the recording and adding 5% in various distortion artifacts but it a SS amp may only be providing 70% of the recording and .0005% distortion but it has missed 25% of what is really there on the recording.

And if the tube amp was really adding an ambiance artifact it would be adding it to every recording in the SAME EXACT way no matter whether it was a classical acoustic recording or an amplified rock recording. It would tie in with every frequency at the same volume all the time always. That would be a distortion generator - the best tube amps don't do this. The SF-1 may do this - the Grant Fidelity Tube Dac 09 kind of does this - a tube buffer may do this and adding a resister in a speaker wire may do this. But the assumption that distortion only affects some recordings and can somehow improve transient attack and decay and ambiance and depth and wholeness is ridiculous IMO. I might give you ambiance in the sense that more low level noise can add a kind of foundation to the music - you hear more low level sound which would be a boost to the lower midbass and bass - but SET is pretty much universally praised for transient speed - that means crisp and incredibly clean open sound getting the initial notes down - and if it was distorted it could not possibly hope to do that it - it would be the exact opposite - difficult to make out clearly and sounding muddy. It can't do both.

[Feanor]

The problem is that you are making an assumption on a fact that doesn't really support the assumption.

Okay. So we see a measurement plot that says amp A has 5% of a type of distortion that amp B does not have at all. So you say that amp A has all these wonderful things like "holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" often attributed to tubes." But you are now making the "leap" that the ONLY reason that the amp generates these wonderful sounding attributes is SOLELY and ENTIRELY based on the distortion figures.
...
No, not exactly. I'm suggesting that there are tube artifacts caused by something. The higher distortion of tubes is acknowledged, so I am speculating further that that distortion causes the artifacts ... but I agree that it might be some other factor.


...
What you have not considered and may very well be equally true and there is no hard evidence either way is that the amp here may in fact be "accurately" resolving "ALL" of these traits from the recordings by the nature of the design such as"holographic soundstage", "depth", "presence", "organic wholeness" but that they are ALSO adding the 2nd order and third order harmonics.

In other words the great tube amp may be giving you 95% of what is on the recording and adding 5% in various distortion artifacts but it a SS amp may only be providing 70% of the recording and .0005% distortion but it has missed 25% of what is really there on the recording.

Maybe so -- because science & engineering haven't devised the tests the correlate closely with the subjective phenomenon. But note that in another, concurrent thread I described the "tube effect" in a test of a tube component against a simple, purely passive device, i.e. potentiometer. In that test any flaws of solid state obviously don't apply.

Also, I remind us that people have heard the tube effect having inserted a tube buffer into system; obviously (unless it's purely their imagination), it cannot be argued that the tubes are passing a purer signal because all the other, supposedly signal distorting solid state components are still in line.


...
And if the tube amp was really adding an ambiance artifact it would be adding it to every recording in the SAME EXACT way no matter whether it was a classical acoustic recording or an amplified rock recording.
...
I don't think you conclusion is warranted. Individual recordings could make the effect more or less apparent.

[Poultrygeist]

"The biggest conformation of this is reports from audiophiles who used to have several hundred watts and many thousands of dollars invested in show winning audio gear, but now report that even a good 2 watt SET on efficient speakers has better dynamics and weight which they find simply amazing. If you've ever observed how audiophiles rotate through audio gear during their lifetime you might also find it interesting that the ones who finally land on SET amps and good speakers seldom find anything they like better."

Steve Decket probably knew this many years before this quote but it took years longer for me and lots of wasted money along the way.

[E-Stat]

Also, I remind us that people have heard the tube effect having inserted a tube buffer into system
I realize this is one of your favorite topics, but magic $200 buffers offered by *distinguished* companies like Yaquin are purchased by folks who don't have a clue about electronics, much less tubes. Marketing tells them they can get the same "effect" just by adding their wonderful buffer. There is a good reason why companies who have been engineering tube designs for decades like McIntosh, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, BAT, Manley, etc., don't bother to make them.

Here (http://www.pacificvalve.us/YaqinTB.html) you'll find some really funny stuff:

"The Yaqin tube buffer is based on the 6DJ8 / 6922 tube and is guaranteed to add the magic of tubes to any system without adding any significant noise or distortion...
Once in place, you will hear an added level of richness, warmth and musicality previously attainable only with a tremendous investment in world-class tube gear. "

On the other hand, they actually tell the truth at "The Watercooler" and focus on the real design goal of the product:

"It can smooth out just about any harsh CD player and add a tube quality without the expense of equipment replacement."

Translation: they are building an intentional filter for bad sounding cheap players. A harsh sounding player will still sound harsh with my preamp. Most likely yours as well.

rw

[Feanor]

I realize this is one of your favorite topics, but magic $200 buffers offered by *distinguished* companies like Yaquin are purchased by folks who don't have a clue about electronics, much less tubes. Marketing tells them they can get the same "effect" just by adding their wonderful buffer. There is a good reason why companies who have been engineering tube designs for decades like McIntosh, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson, BAT, Manley, etc., don't bother to make them.
...
The question is not how well buffers do it, but that they do it at all !! :D


...
Here (http://www.pacificvalve.us/YaqinTB.html) you'll find some really funny stuff:

"The Yaqin tube buffer is based on the 6DJ8 / 6922 tube and is guaranteed to add the magic of tubes to any system without adding any significant noise or distortion...
Once in place, you will hear an added level of richness, warmth and musicality previously attainable only with a tremendous investment in world-class tube gear. "

On the other hand, they actually tell the truth at "The Watercooler" and focus on the real design goal of the product:

"It can smooth out just about any harsh CD player and add a tube quality without the expense of equipment replacement."

Translation: they are building an intentional filter for bad sounding cheap players. A harsh sounding player will still sound harsh with my preamp. Most likely yours as well.

rw
I submit that a lot of people use tubes that way ... not you of course, nor presumably anbody willing to spend 10's of thousands on their tube equipment.

[E-Stat]

The question is not how well buffers do it, but that they do it at all !!
And the truth has been around for decades by the companies who know... :)

rw

[Feanor]

"The biggest conformation of this is reports from audiophiles who used to have several hundred watts and many thousands of dollars invested in show winning audio gear, but now report that even a good 2 watt SET on efficient speakers has better dynamics and weight which they find simply amazing. If you've ever observed how audiophiles rotate through audio gear during their lifetime you might also find it interesting that the ones who finally land on SET amps and good speakers seldom find anything they like better."

Steve Decket probably knew this many years before this quote but it took years longer for me and lots of wasted money along the way.

I hope you're not suggesting, Poultry, that I, after 40+ years of flipping equipment will come around to tubes, single-driver, and vinyl?1? Maybe some just get old & tired and want listen to something smooth and inocuous will they sip their scotch and read a book. Well I'm old & tired but I'm still interested in accurate sound.
Hahaha! I had just had a vision of Florian, (still a young man), selling his Apogee Grands and his Krell amps to kick back with a SET and Fostex speakers. Who knows, eh?

BTW, don't suggest I'm not familiar with bad s/s equipment. In my ignorance, I once lived for a number of years with a Phase Linear 400 amp. Despite being on most TAS writers' list of 10 Most Significant Amplfiers, the device encorporated every vice ever attributed to solid state.

[Poultrygeist]

Sitting here as I type listening to a simple 6 watt 2a3 amp driving $200 DIY horns with a tear welling up in my eye - the beauty of the SET and full range single driver is just emotionally overwhelming. The high dollar inefficient Aerials and powerful Classe ( aka Canadian Krell ) I once owned never moved me in the least.

Here's hoping your system makes you cry but for the right reasons.

[Feanor]

Sitting here as I type listening to a simple 6 watt 2a3 amp driving $200 DIY horns with a tear welling up in my eye - the beauty of the SET and full range single driver is just emotionally overwhelming. The high dollar inefficient Aerials and powerful Classe ( aka Canadian Krell ) I once owned never moved me in the least.

Here's hoping your system makes you cry but for the right reasons.
Thanks you, PG. Yes, it often does. I'll be heading upstairs momentarily to resume listening to this performance of Haydn's The Seasons, directed by Renee Jacobs: terrific performance and sound.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Z8inDREkL._SS500_.jpg

[Poultrygeist]

As our resident classical enthusiast, I hope you can some day hear a string quartet or baroque horns played on some good full rangers driven by a flea power 2a3 amp.

[Feanor]

As our resident classical enthusiast, I hope you can some day hear a string quartet or baroque horns played on some good full rangers driven by a flea power 2a3 amp.
I hope so too, PG. And I even suspect that these ensembles would sound very pleasing on such a system.

[Fred70433]

In reviewing the Magnepan website I never found a bright line recommendation for watts. i.e at least 100 watts per. In fact, Magnepan's website says that they use a 35 watt NAD at their factory. What they do hit upon repeatedly is high current and true 4 ohm load. Your amp needs to be able to support both. Now the question is, does my Jolida 502B fit that bill?

[blackraven]

You should be ok with the JOLIDA as long as you don't play it at very loud levels. Its not a very dynamic amp (with inefficient speakers)with 60wpc and 85wpc peak. For moderately loud music it will do just fine.