The Official Magnepan Owners Thread - Page 43

Thanks, how do the IIIA's perform on the HT duties?

I was worried about that, especially as Maggies in general have their detractors for HT, but I love mine and am very music-centric (historically, anyway) so kept them when I set up my new HT system. However, I think they do great. Their large sound stage really puts you "in" the movie, and with a new BD player I, an avowed "don't care" movie-watcher, have been really getting into the whole HT experience. My room is not large (13'3" by 17'7", 8'5" high) so that may help, and since HT forces a relatively close seating position for me (given a 52" TV and normal rule of 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal for seating distance) volume is not an issue, especially with my Emotiva's behind them. They'll blow my ears off.

I paired them with a pair of 12" Rythmik subs and have been very happy with it all.

I had MG-I's ages ago (the original MG-Is) and skipped the II's to get the IIIa's with the ribbon and have never looked back. I have looked sideways once or twice, having had a number of high-end speakers rotate through my system back in the 80's by virtue of being a tech in a high-end shop, but always came back to my Magnepans. Don't think I could go back to the smaller panels, however; the extra octave or so and larger "presence" the III's and up provide is very compelling. Wish I had room (and budget) for the 20's, but I had forgotten how good my old IIIa's could sound (they were in storage for years while lesser Infinity, KEF, and Mirage systems filled various systems in the house until finishing our basement gave me a place for my IIIa's again).

Thanks Don, that's useful feedback & addresses some of my major concerns. As I said, I wanted to try the larger panels & esp. the ribbon tweeter but the only feedback I was getting was from folks using them in 2 channel analog audio only systems. I'm into analog (& digital) music, but also want them to perform in an HD HT system!

Well, they don't have the dynamic "punch" and loudness of say the B&W 801 or Infinity QLS speakers I had in my system at one time, but within their volume level they are incredibly clean (just like yours) with a tremendous sound stage and image (room treatment is very helpful). I steered a friend of mine (with a much larger room) to B&W and similar dynamics before setting up my old IIIa's and he ended up with 803D's, but he likes to come over and hear mine now and then. Had they been set up it might have been a challenge as they are so clean. Electrostats are even better, but handle high volumes poorly (until you pay a lot more money) and are much harder to drive.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the larger panels -- their extra low end, plus the ribbon tweeter and extra height, really makes a difference! At least for me. - Don

Thanks again Don, I'm going to give them a try - but I might check back for tips on room treatment!

Hi DonH50,

is your CC3 placement lower than ear level? Do you notice any panning issue's from left center right?

strindl placed his above the speakers, yours below so I'm curious how smooth the transition is. Do you crossover at 80Hz, higher or lower?

not sure if it was you that mentioned the CC3 moves around at higher volumes(?)

are you using any decoupling from the CC3 to the stand?

thinking of using vibrapods since I have some.

thanks

1. It is slightly below ear level and is not tilted; I have not noticed issues panning but honestly have not listened critically for something like that, nor am I a terribly critical HT listener (I tend to get into the movie). I listen more critically to audio CDs and such but that's just the L/R speakers. Without knowing the source material it would be hard for me to evaluate.

I can say the transition is much more seamless than when I was using an Infinity center channel speaker. The mismatch between my MG-IIIa's and the Infinity was somewhat glaring, more so after I heard how the CC3 sounded instead. I have also used a phantom center and that works well, so I suspect the combination of coverage from my L/R Maggies and the CC3 makes for a pretty good sound across the front. The CC3 tends to supplement the mains and provides most of the dialogue etc.

2. Crossover for the CC3? No idea; the AVR set it to small so probably 80 Hz. Not something I have looked into. My subs cross over at 40 Hz and are in parallel with the mains (they look like full-range speakers to the AVR).

3. I have not noticed my CC3 moving at higher volumes, or any volume for that matter.

4. I have not used any decoupling other than the little feet it came with. I have never had any issues with the CC3 moving, and with all the stuff in and on the console (which sits on a rug over a concrete floor) it is not moving either. If what a speaker is sitting on is solid, I prefer to tightly couple the speaker so it does not move/vibrate. If the stand was not solid, I would consider a decoupling pad (or whatever). Generally speaking, you do not want your speaker frames or cabinets moving as that can add distortion. That means decoupling pads can be a mixed blessing... If you have them, try them!

HTH - Don

I'm getting my single mmg speaker delivered today to use as a center channel speaker. I have mmg's for mains and I tried the mmg c center channel and I didn't like it. It sounded muted and weak in comparison with the mmgs. I'll let you guys know how I like it after I set it up today or tomorrow, I'm going to have it above the tv laying on it's side. I know it won't sound good for those not right in front of the tv but no one else cares about the sound but me.

Carp - Looking forward to your comments and (I hope) photos.

Hi,

how are you coupling the cc3 to your center console? bolting screws
from the bottom of your console to the cc3?

gees, for a $1K center speaker, you would think they could make
it's base more solid/heavy. 20lbs. is on the light side for center.

thanks

See item 4 in my list -- it is just sitting there on its own little feet on top of the console, and I have never seen it move. As a planar dipole speaker, it does not need a big heavy cabinet; the frame is not subjected to the same stress an enclosed box would be. - Don

I have the Nad T955 to drive the 1.6QR's. Will hook them up this weekend.
From Nad support, they say the T955 does 100W into 8 or 4 ohms. the higher wattage is just dynamic, peak.

What is your suggestion on replacing the T955 with a pair of Emotiva UPA-1 monoblocks?

I would think the Nad is using better parts. I'm not sure if the UPA-1's would have better sound quality vs. the Nad. The UPA-1's have greater output power.

If I return the Nad, it's money lost for return shipping.

Thanks

That NAD is a 5 channel amp. How many channels of amplification do you need? NAD makes good equipment, but unless you got a really great deal on that, there are better ones available for less money. The Emotiva XPA-5 for example.

That NAD looks like a decent amp, and I have in the past found NAD to sound pretty good (YMMV). I am not sure you would hear any difference going to UPA-1's (I tend to doubt it) despite the additional power, and the NAD is a little quieter (higher SNR). Like strindl said, do you need five channels? Also, your room size may dictate how much power you want. - Don

Hi Strindl,

5 channels? yes, I plan to do full maggie for HT and music. I did have the XPA-5 and sold it. it's great for HT but music it was not. way too bright and glaring.

I've read on the emotive forums the UPA's are not bright like the XPA's.

I will be the listening test with the T955 and the 1.6's this weekend, should be able to determine if the T955 is a keeper or not.

Thx

I have read about the "brightness" of Emotiva's but don't quite get it... Maybe because my hearing is shot over about 12 kHz or so in my old age. Or maybe due to my room treatment (see posts 1242/1243 of this thread). I am driving my MG-IIIa's with an XPA-2, and center and surrounds (MC1's) with an XPA-3. My AVR (Pioneer SC-27) is driving only the rears (also MC1's). Have not noticed excessive brightness, and the response measures pretty flat (around +/- 3 dB from around 15 Hz to 20 kHz with one room null around 50 Hz that's about -6 dB).

I have used the tweeter resistors in untreated rooms; the high-range extension of the Maggies is so good it can sound bright, especially in a very reflective room. A little absorption or diffusion might help if you do not have any now.

I'm with you. I'm driving my MG3.6's with a 22 year old Nakamichi PA7 / Threshold Stasis amp designed by Nelson Pass. So far, so good. But if it ever lets go, I'm thinking of a pair of Emotiva XPA1's or the XPA2 to replace my venerable Nak. The Emotiva's seem to have a beefy 1,200 KVA transformer with plenty of energy storage from a bank of 12 10,000uF capacitors and a whopping 24 output devices. I'm not one of those "dry sound" with a "hint of roasted cinnamon" and "smokey leather overtones" audiophiles when it comes to electronics. I have never heard a well designed and properly functioning amp sound "better" or even different after burn-in or warmup with the notable exception of valves. If it can deliver sufficient current with reasonable THD, TIM, and a fast enough slew rate, I find it hard to tell one amp from another. I'm more concerned about value and reliability. Between my hearing (15 KHz), room interactions with the Maggies, and source material, the electronics are waaaaay down my list of worries.

I did a quick listen with music and H.T. using the Nad T955 and the 1.6QR's. Sound is very decent. I need to find my resistors for the tweeters.

well, the feedback about the xpa's being bright came from emotiva as well.

If you do get the XPA's, please let us know how it compares to the Threshold.
You can't go wrong with Pass amps and there would be no brightness with them. They are Class A.

His Nak /stasis amp is not totally class A. The stasis technology invented by Nelson Pass and patented by Threshold gives many of the advantages of class A operation though.

I have 4 Nelson Pass era Threshold amps. three are called "Class A/AB" That means they are designed to operate in class A up to about 20% of their rated output and switch to class B with stasis operation above that.

I do have one amp, a Threshold SA/4e that is pure class A. That's a 97 pound behemoth rated at 100 watts of pure class A power per channel.

I've compared that amp and my other Thresholds directly with my Emotiva amps..a pair of XPA-1 fully balanced ones included. They compare very very well, at a fraction of the price of the Threshold gear. My SA/4e cost $6300.00 in 1993.

Actually the Nak is a Pass Stasis design using zero global negative feedback to control distortion. At low output it runs in class A mode but most of its range is A/B. Still, the sucker runs pretty hot driving the Maggies even with massive exposed heat sinks running down both sides. But, the heat hasn't been a problem. I've definitely gotten my money's worth after 22 years with 16 of those years spent driving Maggie 3.5's and 3.6's. I know it will die someday and I'll hate to see it go. It does everything I'd ever want from an amp.

Strindl, it appears Nelson Pass knew more than just electrical circuit design. Your Threshold SA/4e is still kicking after 17 years and my 1988 vintage Nak PA7 is still alive after 22 years. That's pretty damned good reliability from low production volume products. If my amp dies tomorrow, I'll tip my hat to Nelson Pass and the production team at Nakamichi for a job well done.

Oh yes..they were hand built in small numbers and every component that went into each one was tested to meet specs before it went into an amp. They also burned in each amp for three days at the factory before it was given one final test for meeting it's specs and it sounded right in use. That type of quality control is beyond the capability of most manufacturers.

I recall those Nakamichi Stasis amps very fondly. My Threshold and Magnepan dealer carried them at that time. They were gorgeous amps...both visually and sound wise.

I have a Threshold S500e that was originally built in 1987 and factory upgraded to E series status in 1994. That one is also still going strong driving a pair of Magnepan 1.7's in my living room.

I have just put into service a pair of 1.7's. Great sound, a little shy on the depth of it's bass. I have repositioned many times. I am using unprocessed (no room EQ) 2 channel. Has anyone tried 1.7's in an equalized system?

The bass in the 1.7's will deepen a bit as they break in some, but I have always used subs with my magnepans to add that bottom octave. I use subs with my Thiel 3.6's as well and their -3db point is 27 hz.

I think a sub makes just about any speaker sound a bit better. With magnepans you want to be sure you get a good fast sub. You don't want to replace bass quality for bass quantity.

Wow! This thread is still going strong....I love it! I was among the first few folks to chime in a couple of years ago, and looks like many new and existing Maggie fans have come aboard!

I'm still loving my 3.6s....only thing I'd trade them for is a pair of 20.1s!

And I'm glad to see some of you guys discovering the amazing experience of Maggie HT!

whatever happened to the mini maggies?

What is a great musical sub for the 1.7's?

I like the HSU STF2 sub I'm using with my 1.6s.

I thought some folks might be interested in my weekend project where I took a $50 center-speaker stand and customized it for the Maggie CC3.

Started by ordering a VTI center speaker stand for approximately $50 shipped. While waiting for its arrival, I traced the outline of the CC3 on some heavy butcher paper to create a template. Picked up some black, 12” fiberboard shelving (the CC3 is 10.5” wide) from Home Depot (approximately $6), and then used the template to cut the fiberboard. Carefully measured and drilled holes on the two ends of the fiberboard to match up with the screw holes in the CC3. My thought was to attach the CC3 to the fiberboard by screwing in the plastic feet between the fiberboard and the speaker. Sanded fiberboard multiple times for a smooth fit and then primed and spray-painted flat black.

When the stand arrived, I trimmed the metal top-plate so that it was 10” inches wide (just under the 10.5” of the CC3). Cutting the plate was easier than I anticipated and I only needed a basic jig saw with a metal-cutting blade. Took all of 5 minutes. Also drilled 3 holes in the metal plate on either side of center for screwing the metal plate to the fiberboard. Filed and grinded smooth the edges of the metal plate and then primed and painted black.

Attached center pole to bottom of stand and filled pole with lead shot for added weight. Used small wood screws to attach fiberboard to metal top-plate of speaker stand. Screwed in speaker legs (screw with plastic feet) between fiberboard and speaker to secure speaker to fiberboard and stand.

Used a laser to determine angle to hit ear-level of primary seating area. Was going to use small shims to adjust, but the angle was perfect as it was.

The result is a very level, solid (I was worried about the stand tipping because the CC3 is 36” wide) and acoustically inert stand. Total cost was maybe $60 and about 2 hours of time. A great addition to the CC3.

very nice Kevin, looks like it was made for the maggie,,

Derry