What speakers to use with vacuum tube amplifier?

[Mr Peabody]

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]

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]

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.