The Official Magnepan Owners Thread - Page 49

I am surprised the Integra runs out of steam, but maybe I shouldn't be. My Pioneer actually keeps the power up with all channels driven and a 4-ohm load (even though it's not rated for 4 ohms), but the others I have range from a marginal Denon to an abysmal Sony AVR in terms of output power. The Sony is most recent after my Pioneer and was a real dissappointment (for many reasons). The sound from my mains seems cleaner, with better bass, when driven from the Emotiva compared to the Pioneer (SC-27) but I have not done much A/B listening (too lazy to pull everything out and swap cables AGAIN). I don't think the surrounds or rears changed hardly at all from the Pio to the Emo. The change from the Sony to the Pio was significant, even with direct analog and two channels, and a primary reason I went ahead and moved the XPA-3 upstairs to take over from the Sony (now also upstairs).

The bottom line is to read reviews and forums like these to get a real-world perspective. The FTC has not caught up with AVR (multichannel) ratings and the accuracy and/or completeness of the specs is very questionable. My Sony, rated at 130 W/ch or something like that, would in fact only put out 30 - 40 W/ch with all channels driven.

I ordered the XPA3 today and it should be here by Monday. I will of course report results. Fingers crossed

IMHO, I would not get the UPA-2 to drive the maggies, even though it's rated for 4 ohms. Would been fine for 8 ohm load but not for 4 ohm maggies. Of course it would work with the maggies but you may not like what it sounds like.

Go for UPA-1 monoblocks or XPA-2. just my suggestion.

I think you just made my Christmas!! I did not even consider the mono-blocks! Looking up the UPA-1, it seems to have just the spec's i'm looking for, thanks!

On a related topic, what are the pro/cons between the multichannel amps and the monoblocks?

Monoblocks have a single purpose and do it very well indeed.

I have the older Marantz MA500 monoblocks (4 of them) and they will be the drivers of my MMG's when I finally raise the cash. I'll probably just run two of them at 180 watts (continuous) at 4ohm and sell the other two as I see no need to bridge them to get more power (I have a 14x10 room).

The UPA-1 looks really nice and a great price.

The main drawbacks of monoblocks are their extra size (volume) and power (more heat, higher electric bill). There are measurable (but usually inaudible) improvements gained by having the amplifiers for each channel be in separate chassis', mainly reduction in crosstalk because all signals and power supplies are isolated. By placing the amps near the speakers, often on a low riser right behind them (it is not a good idea to place an amp directly on the floor due to risk of debris entering from the bottom and airflow concerns on carpet), you can use very short speaker cables and reduce the cables most likely to have an influence on the sound (since they see the lowest impedances, greatest currents, and highest voltages in your system outside the power cables).

I considered XPA-1's for my mains, but decided the extra cost and such was not worth it; I certainly don't feel the need for more power driving my MG-IIIa's. I would have to think a bit before deciding whether to get two UPA-1's or a single XPA-2 (I am currently using an XPA-2 for the mains and an XPA-5 for the center, surrounds, and rears).

HTH - Don

Oh, what would be the debate between the 2 UPA-1's and the XPA-2? The increased power the XPA-2 provides, or just the logisics of running two amps verses one? I ask because you stated earlier that the sound difference between your XPA-2 and XPA-3/5 was negligible, and the UPA-1 power output is nearly identical (if not slightly greater) than that of the XPA-3/5.

I look at a lot more than output power, and in fact other than a certain reasonable amount that is perhaps one of my least considerations. The XPA-2 does provide more power (500 W into 4 ohms vs. 350 W for the UPA-1) for roughly $100 more than the pair of UPA-1's, but in truth you are unlikely to hear just the power difference. Other things that make the XPA-2 stand out to me are the increased power supply capacity (transformer is 4x the size) and double the number of output transistors (per channel), leading to better (higher) damping and hopefully tighter bass. As a design engineer, I also appreciate having more design margin in the X-series amps. That should translate to less distortion and longer life. An intangible is the representation by Emotiva that the X-series amps represent a higher-end line with presumably better build quality and such, though again this is unlikely to matter to most of us. And yes, in my situation, having one less box is an advantage, albeit a very slight one.

I did not look closely at the UPA line when I first got my Emotiva; a friend had purchased an XPA-3 then XPA-1's for his system and I liked what I heard. So, I picked up his XPA-3. I couldn't afford (or did not wish to afford) a pair of XPA-1's, but my then-AVR was woefully lacking in power driving my Maggies so when I added the surrounds it made sense to upgrade and I got an XPA-2 on sale to drive my MG-IIIa's. Thinking back, I did consider a pair of UPA-1's as I do in fact have a bias towards monoblocks, but the extra output devices and transformer VA lends a feeling that the XPA-2 is a much better beast for low'ish-impedance loads. I have a vague memory of discussing that with Emotiva, but cannot find an email trail and am too lazy to search for my notes. And again I wasn't up for a pair of XPA-1's; someday...

Not sure that really helps, but enough babbling for tonight - Don

Thanks for the reply my friend. Have a pleasant evening. Merry Christmas.

No worries. Sooo, did ya' get something?

I'm happy to report that the XPA-3 is here and thus far I am impressed. I will post a more indepth review in a few hours after I go do some tweaking and listening. But just from the 10 min demo I just did, it looks like it did the trick.

Had a few hours to digest the new sound and do some initial tweaking. Here are my thoughts.

The Emotiva XPA-3 is big, brute, and awesome. Setup was easy, no guesswork and no surprises. Just make sure you have a strong back to manuever it around because it is very heavy (50+ pounds). The 1.7's LOVE power. I'd heard bits here and there about hearing details in music and movies that you'd never heard before when these types of speakers have enough gusto which I'd previously dismissed as fanboi rhetoric. Not true. I want to clarify this for the curious who may be reading and skeptical like I was...this effect is a combination of power and fidelity. In music you will pick up on an instrument or a sound that you'd never heard before because with the extra power it will be amplified enough to be distinguished from the foreground music. That, on top of the room filling effects of the Magneplanar speaker design bring a depth to the sound that just has to be heard to be understood. On that note, I want to give an observation that may or may not hold true for you but worked out great for me and my particular taste. Per advice from my dealer, I had the tweeters facing inward prior to installing the XPA-3 and while they sounded good, I could tell the imaging wasn't quite right. I played with the toe and the distances from my seating position, both of which helped, but never quite cured the problem. The best way I could describe it is it felt like the sound was playing in my direction, but aiming for something behind me...very very directional. The sweet spot was there, but felt lost. Of course, as soon as I installed the XPA-3 this problem was that much more pronounced. I swapped the pair and placed the tweeters facing outwards and BOOM, left and right channels disappeared into the center right where it was supposed to be. YMMV, but I thought it was worth noting.

What was most impressive to me was what the XPA-3 did for my center channel. Last night I watched a football game which, like most TV, is center channel driven. In sports, 75% of the sound you hear is the commentators talking during the game which all comes through the center channel. This is hard to communicate (or probably believe if you've never heard these speakers yourself), but with the new power I can tell that the commentators are in a box speaking directly into a microphone, rather than just voices coming from the center of my TV. You can tell that there is noise cancellation effects going on from the broadcast end. You can tell that the commentators voices are running through sound enhancement equipment, like what you hear on the radio. You can tell that the room they're in is somewhat noise proof, but when the crowd roars its not coming from the L&R channel like when a play is being run and its muxed in to the audio stream, but rather that what you're hearing is also leaking from the stands, through their room and into their mics and into your center channel. The MMGC painted this auditory picture of what was going on so well that it just immerses you into the experience. I was very, very impressed.

I haven't EQ'd my system or played with any crossover settings yet so I know the sound will only get better. First order of business will be to blend in my sub with the 1.7's to get more blended bass. As it stands right now, the 1.7's play so much of the low end so well that I forget sometimes whether the sub is on or off. But when I play something bass heavy, the rolloff is very abrupt and I can tell there are some gaps that need adjusting. I plan on bringing the sub up a little to around 80hz and crossing the 1.7's a little higher to save them from those "above normal volume sessions" I tend to find myself in. Oh and a note about volume: the Maggies can be very deceptive in communicating just how loud they are playing. With normal cone speakers, the perception of the noise floor tends to float around either distortion, stress on certain frequencies, or both. With sound coming in so clear from these speakers, you have to physically readjust your definiton of "loud". There is a limit of course, but with the XPA-3, it is much much higher than when I was attempting to run the 1.7's straight from my Integra AVR. To give you an idea, I cranked up a song up to 2.0db on the Integra and I couldn't hear myself talking to well, myself.

So all in all, the investments I have made have paid off and I am very happy with the 1.7's. If you're thinking about purchasing these, ensure you have enough power behind them and you will not be disappointed. I think a XPA-2 on them would be PERFECT, but that depends on your room dimensions + desired volume level. I would like a tad more headroom than I have now, but I'll save that for next years upgrades.

- D

Congrats Spectacle. Another satisfied Magnepan customer! I haven't heard anyone crap on Emotiva equipment. An XPA2 or pair of XPA1's is my top candidate for replacing my aging Nakamichi/Threshold Stasis amp when it finally croaks. Emotiva doesn't seem to employ any fancy proprietary circuit designs or exotic parts al la Bob Carver or Nelson Pass. They just seem to build really solid power supplies from the transformer to the filter capacitors to the output device complement with plenty of heat sinking and robust protection circuits. I would be surprised if the Emotiva's didn't provide a long trouble free life of excellent sound quality. That's about all I expect from an amp. The fact that they do it at their prices is amazing.

I think much of the cost of Classe, McIntosh, Krell, etc amps is tied up in fashion statement faceplates milled from solid stock into gee whiz looks that add a lot of weight without impacting the sound at all or huge meters with cool looking blue backlights that only serve to distract users from the sound. I'm not willing to pay for that.

My mileage didn't vary. I've had Maggie 3.5's then 3.6's for about 16 years now. I've got them set up so that the panels are 3' from the front wall with the tweeters on the outside edge of the panels 9' apart and the listening position is about 15' in front of the speakers. The panels are just slightly toed in toward the center.

I've tried swapping the panels so that the tweeters are on the inside edge of the panels several times but never liked it. I always swap them back soon after trying the alternate orientation.

That got me wondering. How many of the Maggie faithful are "innie's" and how many are "outie's"?

CES: Will Magnepan's new speaker be an open window to the music?


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20...heAudiophiliac


I haven't heard the 3.7 yet, but I spoke at length with Warren Gehl, who works for Audio Research, a high-end electronics manufacturer, because he's spent many hours auditioning the 3.7. Gehl could hardly contain his enthusiasm, "It is one of the most lifelike, natural imaging speakers I've heard," he said, "and clearly the best sounding single-panel speaker Magnepan has made to date. It's in the top handful of truly realistic sounding speakers I've heard at any price." Audio Research uses lots of vastly more expensive speakers to test their electronics, and regularly demonstrates their latest gear with them at shows


Magnepan is promoting its own 3.7 CES demonstrations with a rather unusual claim, promising there won't be a bad sounding seat in the room. That's a bold assertion for speakers that have up to this point have had a rather small sweet spot, so only one or two people would ever hear Magnepan speakers at their best. The Magnepan room will seat upwards of 20 people.

Glad the amp worked out! I've been happy with mine...

Over the years I have had tweeters in and out -- depends on the room and placement which sounds better. I actually think mine are "in" now, though I did try both ways when I first set them up and again after installing all my sound panels. I'll have to look tonight.

I've got my tweeters out, haven't tried them in yet. One of the problems I'm having with my soundstage is it is too wide, instruments sound too far left and right of each other. In some ways it's because of the small room size, you have to close your eyes and forget about your room size. I can't really move my speakers in closer because of my projection screen. I need to experiment. It's possible I could make a shifting mount and move the speakers in for music and back out for cinema.

Spectacle, that's great news on the amp. I couldn't decide to go for pure watts or a 'boutique' amp. Years ago I had a MMG setup and used a DIY power amp with good results but this time I decided to try a boutique amp for fun.

My Odyssey Khartago should arrive shortly. It will be interesting to compare with my Denon AVR. The Khartago is rated for 110 watts although I ordered the Extreme version which should bring it to 150 watts at 8 ohms, should be close to 300 watts at 4 ohms.

Additional coverage prior to CES at AVGuide:

http://www.avguide.com/article/magne...brother-the-17

Magnepan did not disclose a lot of details about 3.7. Magnepan's background statement says only that, the 3.7 is a 3-way, full-range ribbon speaker with a very fast' quasi-ribbon midrange and true ribbon tweeter. CNET has inferred that not just the midrange but also the bass panel is quasi-ribbon. We'll have to wait a week or so for more details.

HaroldKumar -- Try swapping them L/R so the tweeters are in; that may help your image problem. Also, play with the toe-in a bit if you haven't already.
HTH - Don

Just checked mine -- tweeters on the inside in my present system (yes, tried both ways, before and after sound treatment). Generally if they are a bit "wide apart" relative to the listening position then I have preferred tweeters "in". Through the years I have had them (much) more often "out" than "in" but my present set-up has me sitting fairly close due to the HT set-up (need a bigger TV, eh? ) and that ends up with the speakers on the "wide" side. I also have them toed in slightly.

Magnepan and ARC are neighbors, and years ago ARC used Maggies in their demo room and for sound checks. You could even buy them from ARCat one time IIRC. Mine were formerly driven by an ARC D79 (top, Counterpoint SA-220 bass), recently sold. SS gives tighter bass for the most part, but that D79 sure made the top end sing...

FWIWFM - Don

Crap, I've been waiting for / dreading the day the 3.7 rolls out. I'll have to hear it. If it really is much better, I'll probably end up buying a pair. However, I will not be checking off the box for that RED finish.

My 3.5's and 3.6's have both been black on black. I think I'll go wild with the 3.7's and order the cherry finish if they still offer it. Otherwise, black it is. I kinda wish they changed the look a little. The 3.7 appears indistinguishable from the 3.5 or 3.6 and appears to have the same dimensions. I thought they may change direction with the whole product line towards something like the look of the 1.7. C'est la vie. I still like the look after all these years. And at $5,500 the 3.7 is not cheap but I don't think it's overpriced either. Maybe keeping the tooling for the frame helped keep the price from escalating. It would be nice to see increased sensitivity and dynamics in the 3.7. That would top my wish list.

EDIT: Just looked at the AV Guide article. It looks like the "RED" finish is actually the Cherry wood. Eeeeyuck! Wow, I remember the old cherry finish being a lot more subdued. Maybe the photos are giving it that fire engine red appearance. If that really is the new cherry, it looks like black on black again for me.

Oh wow! Here we go again - I have MG 3's, MG 3.5 & MG 3.6. I guess now it will be 3.7.

It's time to sell something. 3.6 to the back of the room. 3.7 up front - get rid of 3.5.

MG3's are, I'm sure, unsaleable.

BTW - I have always preferred tweeters OUT!

I just purchased 2 MG12s, 1 CC5, and 2 MMC1s for a HT setup. I also ordered 2 Aperion Bravus II 8Ds to hopefully fill in the low end for movies, off during music. I was reading over the manual for the CC5 and the setup, although unorthodox, was understandable except the part that mentions using y-adapters from the front left/right outputs. To my knowledge, there aren't any 1 male to 2 female banana plug splitters that I could find, only RCA ones. It also seems I'll need 4 of them to provide full signal to the subs. Can anyone provide clarity on this?

The subs take a line-level input, not speaker. You can either split the sub (LFE) output from your AVR, or use the preamp outputs of your AVR and use the subs to augment the bass of you main L/R speakers. If you do the latter, you'll very likely want to place the subs near the mains and symmetric.

If you really want to use speaker-level inputs to the sub (I'm not sure they have speaker-level inputs) you can use bare wire for the L/R speakers and additional wires (with banana plugs or not) to the subs.

HTH - Don

I need some input from a Maggie enthusiast please. Right now I have a pair of MG1Cs and I have the stage and depth that take me to real stage. My weakest part of system has to be the crossovers in the panels. My source, cables, and amp is perfect IMO. My room is apx 18 x 18. I want to upgrade the speakers. I have the chance to get a pair of tympani 1ds, I just need to send them off to get them repaired. Or should I get a set of 1.7s instead or a set of 3.6s? I have a Van Alstine 440 hc which is 220 a side.
Thank you in advance.

The crossovers in the panels? Not sure how you reach that conclusion; I would guess the smaller Maggies don't reach low enough for you?

Anyway, while the Tymp's are (can be) great, the 1D's are pretty old, pretty big, and can be a pain to set up (durn tri-fold panels). In that size room I would go with 3.6's (or the soon to be released 3.7's).

FWIWFM - Don

Can you explain why you come up with that conclusion? I don't mind big panels in the room. I just am not sure what direction to go here. By the time I get Magnepan to recondition the Tymps it would cost about the same as the 1.7s. Thank you again.

What I do not understand is how you have determined the crossover in your panels is the weakest link?

I think I misread your post -- you have Tymp 1C's now? My little pea brain read it as MC1's, sorry...

I have not heard Tympani's in ages but have heard them all from I to IV. I always felt they sounded very impressive but produced too wide an image source in all but the largest rooms. And, I found myself endlessly tweaking the three panels on each side to optimize the response. I was seriously considering Tymps some time back but ended up with IIIa's instead. I actually prefer their smaller size and find them much easier to set up. New magnet material and such has improved the bass response so the 3's actually go lower than the 1D's. Although a rebuild might help the Tymp's? The 1D's were rated to 40 Hz, the IV's to 30 Hz, my IIIa's to 35 Hz (the 20.1's go to 25 Hz). A popular mod "back then" was to add extra bass panels to any speaker in the line.

Each side of the 1D's is ~48" wide (three 16" panels) so with 18' across and perhaps 2' to the outside the panels are only 6' apart (18' - 2x4' panels - 2x2' each panel to side wall); closer to the wall and they'll be perhaps 8' apart. Not too bad, actually, now that I think about it, but I'd still get the 3.6's myself. Actually, had I the money, I'd love to have a pair of 20.1's... However, I agree the Tympani's would be impressive in your room (mine is too small, insert green jealous look here), and if you've the space and power go for it!

A caveat: if you have 1C's now, you might check into having them rebuilt as the rebuild would probably take them to the same level as rebuilt 1D's. Also, does the rebuild add a ribbon tweeter?

Also, though this may be a non-issue for you, I'll throw out my usual comment that Maggies, like most dipoles, benefit from good room treatment more than normal speakers.

Let us know what you decide! - Don