AVS Forum banner
1M views 10K replies 585 participants last post by  threshold350 
#1 ·
This thread is for discussion of Magnepan speakers. I think there are a lot of owners on the forum but I haven't seen a thread for them. Below are some useful links for owners or those considering Mags.

Owner's Manuals

Maggie User Group

Planar forum at the Asylum

Reviews

Mye stands


Magnepan also offers a cheap and easy way to test drive some Mags. You can buy MMG's straight from Magnepan and try them out for 60 days in your home risk free. Or, if you want, you can upgrade within one year and get full credit for your MMG purchase. Details here .


I'm currently using some Magnepan 1.6QR's. Previously I had some 3.6R's and before that some 1b's 3a's and a pair of 2 somethings.


Hopefully, forum members curious about these speakers can come here and learn and any owners can ask questions. One thing I've found with my maggie experiences is to feed them lots of power. I drove the 3.6R's with a Musical Fidelity Trivista 300 and felt no need for a sub with two channel sources. The sound was divine.


Feel free to PM me with anything else you think should be in the first page and I'll add it.
 
See less See more
#4,093 ·
Hi guys,

I'm heading over to a sale tomorrow where someone has a pair of MGII's for sale for $150. I don't have any experience with purchasing vintage maggies, so I'd love some suggestions on what I should be looking for. I'm planning to give them a listen, of course; however, I'd love to know what I should be thinking about before pulling the trigger on these.

Thanks so much!
 
#4,094 ·
Hi guys,

I'm heading over to a sale tomorrow where someone has a pair of MGII's for sale for $150. I don't have any experience with purchasing vintage maggies, so I'd love some suggestions on what I should be looking for. I'm planning to give them a listen, of course; however, I'd love to know what I should be thinking about before pulling the trigger on these.

Thanks so much!
For a hundred and fifty? Just buy 'em!
 
#4,097 · (Edited)
If you have no use for them, let somebody who wants/needs them deal with them. Dunno' about you, but the last thing I need in our house is more clutter... Unless you have another room or plan to resell them? I suspect there is little chance you will replace your Theos' with MG-II's at this point.

As for me, the price is tempting if they work, so I would not even go because of the strong impulse to buy something I don't really need nor have space for just because they're cheap... ;)
 
#4,098 ·
If you have no use for them, let somebody who wants/needs them deal with them. Dunno' about you, but the last thing I need in our house is more clutter... Unless you have another room or plan to resell them? I suspect there is little chance you will replace your Theos' with MG-II's at this point.
No, they definitely would not be used to replace the Theos which are, for all purposes, more capable speakers in basically every way. I do have a second room in which I'm currently running some old Boston Acoustics bookshelves that I have no love for. My plan would be to either sell the Boston's or sell the Maggies if they end up not fitting in the space.
 
#4,099 ·
Had a listen to them today. They sounded really good except for distortion with low frequencies. The amplifier the guy had them hooked up to was underpowered for the task of pushing maggies and it was old and he was in the process of rebuilding it.

In my estimation, the most likely culprit is amplifier clipping--either clipping on the output side or on the input since were driving them from a 3.5mm -> RCA adapter hooked up to an mp3 player with FLAC files.

I know the speakers are only rated down to 50hz; however, I didn't expect that to result in distortion. My gut tells me it was the amp; but, I don't want to jump on these only to find out they need $500+ in work from Magnepan.
 
#4,100 ·
Last past on this topic: First, thanks (especially to DonH50) for input on these! The price was right and they did sound good--but I was worried that I might be getting in over my head if something was wrong with them. I'll still keep my eyes open for a bargain on used maggies; but, I feel like these were just too big a risk given their age.
 
#4,104 ·
ALL old Maggies are a risk. I wouldn't buy a pair unless 1- They had been recently been sent to Magnepan for a relamination (such was the case with the T-IV's I bought last year), or 2- I found a pair I really wanted (say, a pair of T-IVa's) at a price that with the cost of relamination included were still reasonably priced. I mean, with the price of a new pair of .7's being what it is, why bother? But for $150, hell, I'd buy 'em and put 'em out on the patio!
 
#4,102 ·
Even with a flashlight (maybe not a strong enough one, I guess) I was having a really hard time seeing the panel through the fabric. Any suggestions on how best to accomplish this in the future?
 
#4,103 ·
Worklight? I use a bright flashlight and move it around to shine at different angles whilst peering at the panels. At home I have a bright floor light I bring over and aim at the speaker. (Why at home? Kids, pets...) Depending on the sock fabric it can be hard to see anything. I look at both sides although there are magnets on one side (both sides if MG-20.x).

If there is a buzzing sound, usually (but not always) at the top and/or bottom, that sounds like wires vibrating against the panels (because that's what it is), then it is delamination. You can usually hear buzzing well before the amp clips unless they are way underpowered. Unless it is really bad you probably won't see delamination although sometimes the wires will be discolored where they are no longer enclosed in the glue.
 
#4,107 ·
LOL, careful with those absolute statements! :)

I had my room nice and big, all prime dimensions, then we decided to add a bedroom and suck about 1/3 of my floor area away... :( At least my boy likes it, when he's here! Away at college now...
 
#4,108 ·
LOL, careful with those absolute statements! :)

I had my room nice and big, all prime dimensions, then we decided to add a bedroom and suck about 1/3 of my floor area away... :( At least my boy likes it, when he's here! Away at college now...
Now THAT'S love! I'm a few months away from making my last (I hope) move, and high on my list of wants is one of those prime dimension rooms. The only way to have a 10 X 16 X 26 room is to build one, but an 8 X 13 X 19 is possible to find, makes for a good sounding room, and is just big enough for a pair of panels.
 
#4,111 ·
FWIW, GIK has a special running at the moment for their freestanding bass traps and their thinner freestand acoustic panel. For the bass trap, it will come under $300 after shipping for a pair of absorbers that seem to be a perfect fit for the MMG to 1.7 range of panel sizes. I've been using the freestand bass traps behind my MMGs for a few weeks now and it really is worth it. Of course, one could make a DIY one significantly cheaper (been there with Jon Risch's design a dozen and a half years ago) but the freestands are finished on both sides and the steel feet are a nice touch. Pic enclosed to give an idea of their size.

http://www.gikacoustics.com/product/freestand-bass-trap/
 

Attachments

#4,112 · (Edited)
Once you've heard what ASC Tube Traps (or DIY bass traps built with the same observance of acoustic theory) are capable of doing in a sealed room, traps built otherwise (flat panels, which are great for non-bass frequencies) seem like 98 lb. weaklings in comparison, in their ability to absorb very low frequencies. Of course, that ability comes at a substantially higher cost than flat panels.
 
#4,113 ·
My corner traps have about 12" of regular OC-703 or whatever and seem to help somewhat. ;)

Damping the back wave, at least in the midrange and up (preferably lower but that's harder), can make a substantial difference in sound in most rooms. Not everyone likes it, to each his own.

IME/IMO - Don
 
#4,114 · (Edited)
My corner traps have about 12" of regular OC-703 or whatever and seem to help somewhat. ;)

Damping the back wave, at least in the midrange and up (preferably lower but that's harder), can make a substantial difference in sound in most rooms. Not everyone likes it, to each his own.

IME/IMO - Don
Whether or not to absorb, or diffuse, the rear wave of a dipole speaker is one thing. Employing bass traps to absorb the build up of bass standing waves in a sealed room is a different thing entirely. There isn't any room or system, no matter what the desired sound characteristic of it may be, that does not benefit from being fitted with bass traps, whether the speakers are dipole, bipole, or monopole; ESL, magnetic-planar, ribbon, horn, dynamic, or any other type of speaker. As far as an enclosed space with any set of speakers in it, a room is a room, and bass is bass. And few of us have one with dimensions optimum for the minimization of bass frequency modes. Too few systems have the cost of bass traps included in their budget, IMO. The room---the single most important component in a system, and the one usually considered only as an afterthought, and with far too little funds earmarked for. In this case, your mileage will NOT vary!
 
#4,117 ·
I used two paragraphs for a reason, to indicate they were not the same thing.

My corner absorber is broad-band and is not actually flat but is most certainly not "sealed". It is off the corner a bit since OC-703 etc. absorbers work better a bit off the wall (need some wave velocity to provide better absorption). I am not sure what a "sealed absorber" is nor how broadband; what comes to mind is a resonator (a.la. Helmholtz) or just a cavity (tube) filled with absorbing material. If it is completely sealed I am not sure how it works (but have not tried to think about it). You can go to the NRC or any one of a number of sites to see the absorption curves for various materials. Most fall off at LF, natch, leaving you to make up with thickness. Or switch technologies... Diffusors get too large to be practical in most rooms at very low frequencies (but can be great for higher frequencies). Resonator structures, membrane structures, active systems, etc. etc. etc. Beyond the scope of this thread.

As for my system, I have (in today's dollars) about $12k in speakers and about $3k in room treatment (couple of dozen 2'x4' panels, 4" and 6", plus those thick corner thingies (
 
#4,119 · (Edited)
Yeah Don, Helmholtz resonator is exactly correct. The term sealed means the sound that goes in does not come back out. It's really a lymph mass, I think it's called. The larger in diameter the trap, the lower in frequency it's effective. They've been built into the walls of recording studios for a long time. What Art Noxon at ASC did was make them free standing and independent of the room's structure, and in different sizes. Then RPG came along, and introduced audiophiles to diffraction---the random scattering of reflections, rather than their absorption. With those two devices, a good sounding room can be had. For a price, of course! There is a new high-performance Hi-Fi dealer in S. California, Brian Berdan, son of Brooks (R.I.P.) at Audio Elements, who did it right, building his main listening room 10' H X 16' W X 26' L. Those dimensions make for the most even, mild room modes possible.
 
#4,120 ·
Hmmm... A resonator is good at a fundamental and at multiples of that. I am guessing the trap is filled to provide deep nulls at a series of frequencies and still offer decent broadband absorption. Been a long time since my grad acoustics classes and my career took a different path... There are resonator structures that provide multiple resonant frequencies to provide a range of control.

Diffusion has been around a long, long time; pretty sure it predates RPG ;) though they have made some popular products. For laymen Everest has a decent presentation. I'd love to add some diffusors but unless you DIY they are much more expensive than just velocity-based absorbers (and harder to make if you DIY). Arguably a better choice sonically.
 
#4,121 ·
Don, there is a lot of technical info on the ASC website about their Tube Traps, way more than I could remember. Art Noxon is an expert in the field, and was doing recording studios for years before he addressed the audiophile consumer market. I give RPG credit for targeting the audiophile market with their diffusors, not for inventing them! I found the RPG products unacceptably over-priced when I looked into them. Diffusors are pretty easy to make, and the formulas to do so are available on the www.
 
#4,122 ·
I should read the ASC white papers again before saying more. read them years ago but it's been a while and I've forgotten most of it (I keep going back to basics; the math was so hideous in those grad acoustics classes that basic principles have -- mostly -- stuck with me). In case it is not obvious, I in no way shape or form consider myself an acoustics expert, just played with it a bit (theoretical and practical, college and work counts for something).

As for easy to make, diffusors are harder to make than throwing sheets over panels, but yah not that hard to make. There are some gorgeous examples in various DIY threads. I'm just lazy. Or maybe too many 60 - 80 workweeks. There are also a number of different schemes (equations) for implementing diffusors, each with their proponents and detractors. Sonically probably little difference to the average listener if it's QRD, PRD, MLS, or whatever. The biggest drawback is they need to be big (and deep) for lower frequencies, making them difficult to recommend behind panels for reducing the back wave. (I have in the primordial past worked in studios that had 4' to 8' deep or so diffusors.) They are my first choice sonically for most wall and ceiling treatments, but I didn't have the funds to buy nor time and resources to build back when I was putting together my new media room.

Note Maggies and most panels act like line sources from lower midrange up and so do not radiate much off the sides or top and bottom. That reduces the need for sidewall and ceiling treatment in most rooms (not mine, alas) and improves their relative efficiency/sensitivity compared to conventional speakers (the sound falls off a little less rapidly with distance).
 
#4,123 ·
Hi everyone,

This is my 1st post in this section. I’ve had a pair of 1.6’s since 1998 (?). When I got them and had smaller room, 13 x 17 x 8, with corner bass traps and 12 diffusor cabinets designed by Decware. The room had a wooden floor and was very bright—too bright by HT standards but I really liked it. The wood floor added a lot to the room. The corner bass traps were a sealed design.

Then I moved and started building a house. In 2005 I got the theater/listening room to an acceptable point and had to focus on other things. The room is a geodesic dome above my garage—27.5 feet in diameter. Domes are the worst acoustical space you can imagine. Ethan Winer has a video describing what flutter is—my room was just as bad if not worse.

In 2005 I got the room to an acceptable point. Uncovered OC 701 was stacked around the outside of the room and a 117 square foot bass trap hung in the center of the room. This created a somewhat anechoic space but at least the flutter was gone.

Now I doing a makeover of the room. I have had 4 major problems to deal with. 1) I’m using Maggie’s and 99.9% of the information out there about room acoustics is the opposite for a dipole speaker. 2) I’m only found 1 article out of all the years I’ve been interested in this hobby that applies to domes. 3) I want a combined theater/listening room. Many audiophiles consider me a heretic—it’s 2 channel or nothing at all! 4) Domes have horrible acoustic challenges.

The first project in the makeover was to build a bass trap that extends all the way around the room. I the trap is and OSB frame covered with felt, filled with regular pink house insulation and trimmed out with walnut plywood. The dimensions are 3’ in the back, 2’ in the front and 20 inches deep. The bass trap made a dramatic difference in the music. Everything is crisper and more focused. The bass is tight. The room is brighter without increased flutter. The upper midrange treble reflecting off of the walnut strips is diffused.

Attached is a picture of my new bass trap and a REW plot. I'll quit here. My limited experience has been that properly treating a room will make a dramatic difference in the sound. I'm just a hobbyist. I can only imagine what a professionally designed room must sound like.
 
#4,124 ·
According to the MUG site the 1.6's came out in 1998.

I see no pictures?

Maggies act like line sources from lower midrange up and do not radiate much to the sides or top/bottom. That means they are less likely to have problems in a room with a dome ceiling than conventional speakers. Otherwise conventional treatment rules apply. For music and/or HT; sonically I do not see why the goals need be different. the addition of side and rear speakers can add more potential reflections, of course, but since they support the video I would focus on cleaning up the sound for music and HT will likely sound just fine.

It is not clear to me from a quick read of your post what problems you have and what you want to do. What has changed, or is changing, to necessitate a redo? In general my advice for dipoles is to first treat the wall behind the speakers then decide what else might need doing. If your listening position has a wall close behind, that would probably be my next target, but "it depends". My room is heavily (probably excessively) treated mainly to control some vexing room modes but most do not need so much treatment. If your walls follow the dome, i.e. are not rectangular, then reflections can be an issue and more wall treatment could help. But it sounds like you are already there...?

HTH - Don
 
#4,125 ·
I hope the pictures come through this time.

I've read many times that a cube is the worst shaped room and that may be but a geodesic dome is a close 2nd. All of the ceiling panels point toward the floor so the reflections that survive the carpet eventually end up in the center of the room bouncing back and forth causing intense flutter. The bass modes are intensified because everything is the same. The only corner in the room is where the ceiling comes in contact with the floor. With conventional speakers the surrounds have absorption directly behind the speaker. With Maggie's the absorption would be off to the side and maybe have diffusion directly behind the Maggie.

Quite often the recommendation for treating a room is to have a dead front end which works great for conventional speakers but not for Maggie's. Also, in my opinion, Maggie's sound better in a bright room. I'm not a big fan of treating reflections with absorption.

As far as the goals of music verses HT go, I'm with you. They should not be that much different. One issue I came across recently was having a TV between the speakers. The TV destroyed the stereo image. I was amazed at the difference when I took the TV out.

How do you recommend treating the wall behind the dipoles?
 

Attachments

#4,127 ·
Killing the back wave is something I prefer as the image is much better (no comb filtering). It does "deaden" the sound, however, so is not for everyone. IME you can skip it in a room big enough to get them well away from the wall behind. I use thick absorbers (6" plus 12" in the corners) behind mine because they are much cheaper than diffusors and work at much lower frequency for their size (thickness). My room is square in a couple of dimensions so I have a lot of absorption. Ideally I would use more diffusors on the side walls and ceiling; maybe one of these days I'll build or buy some to replace some of the absorption panels. Or not...
 
#4,128 ·
From what I have read, the back wall should have absorption or at least a 20 ms delay. I had a 16 ms delay time and put the diffuser in manly because I liked the design. It is also the head board of my bed. The base hasn't been made yet. It breaks down into 3 pieces: the front frame, upper 3 rows and the lower 3 rows. Then pieces go on the ends. The upper and lower pieces weigh 150 lbs each.

Comb filtering doesn't affect the sound unless the peaks to valley's are over 3 db(?) I don't know.

I have a new Sony VPL-HW40E. I was going to go with a large TV but after hearing what a huge difference the TV made to the stereo image I decided to put in another projector with an acoustically transparent roll up screen.

A while back I had been messing around with Audyssey. My son came over and listened. I thought it was sounding pretty good compared to before. He listened and said "It sounds like sh**. My last theater sounded really good.

So yesterday I had him listen again and he was just beaming. It sounds really good! As good as last theater? "Better!" The only thing that has changed is the acoustics.
 

Attachments

Top