The Official Magnepan Owners Thread - Page 78

Is this thread still active?

Yes

When it needs to be...

I sure hope so. I'm just about to order a pair of MMGs. My late, lamented, and defunct MG IIBs from the 80's are in the cellar. The last time I checked (more than a few years ago) the tweeter sections had bitten the dust. The cost of shipping them from NJ to White Bear Lake and paying for a refull refurb would exceed the cost of the MMGs, plus I'd be stuck with 30-year-old technology. I loved them dearly, but I have a feeling that the quality of the QR treble in the little guys would trump the sound of the IIB's.

I'm on a tight budget, so buying the 1.7s is out of the question and being disabled, redoing them myself is also moot. I googled around to see if anyone in my area did refurbishing, but no such luck.

With all the talk of the new Maggie woofer, it had me wondering whether one or both of the IIBs could be used in that fashion. Assuming a proper crossover and amp, which I probably have laying around, I don't know whether it would actually add anything to the MMGs. It might. Even though it's intended for use with the wall-mounted models, the manual of the DWM does mention "For additive bass with the 1.7s or 3.7s, move the DWM 10 inches closer from the equi-distance position toward your listening position."

Considering their size, trying to find a place to put them in a 13x 19 living room (while achieving proper acoustical phasing) might be impossible anyway.

I need to unearth them anyway to see what shape they're in. They'll probably end on up on the Ebay auction block for someone else to refurb. Still, defunct though they may be, I'll miss 'em.

Have you called Magnepan to see how much a refurb would be and what it includes? They usually replace the panels and upgrade crossover components if needed. I suspect a refurb'd pair of MG-IIB's would smoke a new pair of MMGs though I have not heard the MMGs for comparison.

FWIWFM - Don (still listening happily to my 1984 MG-IIIa's)

I will be calling them, but looking at my old notes on it, it's probably not cost-effective. In 2005, they told me it would be $500-700, plus $40 for new shipping cartons and at least $100 to ship them. I bought those babies back in 1981. A repair kit would only be $30 or so, but I'm in no shape to even attempt disassembly to see if the mylar is still intact.

The quasi-ribbon tweeter of the MMG is supposed to make a substantial improvement in air and transparency, as opposed to the old tweeter wiring. I bet your true-ribboned IIIAs still sound fabulous. Wish I had $2000 for the 1.7, but it's a lot easier to scrape together $600 for the MMG. OTOH, if a winning lottery ticket shows up in the next year, I can always trade up.

I started with I's, then II's (briefly) in the middle of a number of other speakers before getting my III's. I would pull out those old II's and see if they still work, then decide. I suspect few over 50 will hear the difference between the MMG's QR and the II's tweeter panel, while the bass difference may be noticeable. I have not heard the MMG's so cannot say from personal experience.

Remember your friends when that winning lottery ticket hits...

I have a pair in storage and was never happy with them. To me, they were harsh and severely lacking in "bottom". I imagine the argument could be made that the problems were attributable to setup and my other equipment but I replaced them with 1.6QR's long before I moved and upgraded my system otherwise. The 1.6's have both "tamer" highs AND far better low end. System upgrades have only enhanced those qualities.

If I lived in NJ and was looking at Maggies of any type..

I'd be checking these out..
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Magnepan-MG-...item4d013a2b5e

I don't know the seller, but I'm fairly sure these are two ways with ribbon tweeters. If these are in good condition, I would think they would be a better overall speaker than the MMGs. Never heard the 2.5s but heard good things about them. If they were near me and I were in the market, I'd be checking them out.

Hope it's ok to post a link like this.

Whatever you decide, good luck.

By the way, I had a set of IIB's myself, now my son is using them. I'm now using 3.6R's and IIIA's in my HT, ET LFT VIIIA's in my LR and PSB Image T45's and B15's in my BR. Different rooms, different sounds for different needs.

It's all good.

I haven't heard any other Maggies besides my MMGs but have had a very positive experience with them.

I listen to 60s/70s rock of all kinds, jazz from all eras and select prog primarily. My pre/pro allows me to cycle between the two subs i have set up to compliment the MMGs (read the boards - sub (s) are highly recommended) and direct input bypassing them as well.

In *my* treated listening space neither the bass is weak (with the expectations of a speaker that plays down to 50 Hz) nor or the highs "harsh." If the axiom "trust your ears" is true, then mine are very satisfied.

Funny, I had already put those 2.5/Rs on my Ebay watch list a few days ago just for the heck of it. I gave them serious consideration, but when I found out that 2.5s were produced from 1987-90, it meant that they were 22-25 years old. There's no way to be sure that the woofers hadn't delaminated without disassembly. In their prime, they'd run rings around the MMGs, but 20+ years is too much to take a chance on.

On the subject of Maggies and "bottom"

When I bought my speakers back in the 80's, it was down to three: the Dahlquist DQ-10, the Infinity Reference Standard II B, and the Magnepan IIB (Acoustats, Apogees, Shahinians, and Vandersteens had already been eliminated). I couldn't find all 3 at any one dealer, but I was able to compare two at a time. The Dahlquist was the first eliminated at the Sounding Board in Ridgewood NJ. I think it was at Lyric in NYC that I was able to compare the Infinity and the Maggies. Those Infinitys were mighty impressive, with 3 EMIT tweeters (one on the back), 3 EMIMs, 2 10" woofers, with a freq. response of 29 to 32,000 Hz ±2 dB. Beautifully constructed, with a design based on the original and massive Infinity Ref. Standards. How could Maggies hope to beat that?

One recording did it: The Sheffield Drum Record. One of the finest recordings of drums ever made, direct-to-disc. Few albums could test or tax a stereo system like that record. Super-wide dynamic range, with lightning-fast transients.

The EMITS were crystal clear, the soundfield was encompassing and there were prodigious amounts of bass coming from the Infinities, but...

...compared to the Maggies, the low end sounded like mud. It truly shocked the hell out of me! It only took me two minutes to decide, because the difference was truly like night and day.

It wasn't quantity I wanted, it was quality.

The speed and the clarity of the Magnepans were magificient.

Some months later, after my Maggies were broken in, I put on a recording of the Verdi "Four Sacred Pieces". That's about as different from the Sheffield as you can imagine. I turned off the lights and listened to the third section, written for a capella women's voices. It floated in the air, the choir was tangible, and it brought tears to my eyes.

I'd heard the Verdi performed live, and I'd sung it (though not THAT section, since I'm a tenor) in Carnegie Hall, so I quite literally knew it from the inside and out. I could hear everything, and I mean everything.

I'm a trained muscian, and I worked in recording studios in my younger years, both in front of the mikes and at the mixing board. My hearing at the high end may not be as good as 30 years ago, but I can still hear clarity, transparency, transient response, soundstaging. I know what it sounds like on stage and in the audience.

Now you know why I miss my Maggies so much.

I still have my Drum Record but don't have my turntable set up... And Maggies replaced my IRS2 system. Small world...

My Maggies have been unearthed, by people much stronger than me, along with the Carver components that I'd used to drive them. I still have to dig out the banana plugs & multimeter tomorrow so I can test them to hear what kind of shape they're in.

Edited by Metaphysician - 6/26/12 at 6:27am

I have a new Music Hall a70.2 integrated Amp.125w 8ohm 185w 4ohm.Will that drive the 1.7 maggies.Thanks

^ Yes.

I suggest hooking the amp to a load resistor, or cheap pair of speakers, to make sure it works OK before attaching to the Maggies. Worst case, do not hook the amp to the speakers and powre it up. Check the output with your multimeter to make sure the amp's output d.c. voltage is ~0 V before proceeding.

Might we get some photos of people's Maggie systems? I know I've seen Don's and Vinyl's, and mine buried in here, but I think that's it.....

Sure. It all depends what you listen to, as to how much power you need.

Before I got my Carver, all I had was a Bang & Olufsen receiver that probably put out 40 watts into 4 ohms. I used that to break in the Maggies while I was at work, and it was fine. Magnepans present a resistive load, so they're easy to drive.

The Carver puts out 300w into 4 ohms and is stable down to 2 ohms. That'll be fine, too.


I'll go the cheap speaker route. I'd probably blow up the multimeter or the amp if I tried to test it. The amp runs the channels 180 degrees out of phase. I'm just going to use the multimeter to test for continuity (or lack thereof) in the Maggies.

I am awaiting delivery of the following Magnepan System: CC5 and DWM woofer for the center channel, 1.7's for the LR, and MC1's for the surrounds. Rhythmic F12's for the sub??? The room is almost finished and speakers should be set up in about two weeks. Speaker placement should be finalized?????

I took a real leap of faith in purchasing the Maggies as a home theater system. The package was within my budget and I could only audition the 1.7's as a stereo demo. I don't know any dealer in the New York area auditioning a home theater setup based on Maggies. I owned and sold my MGIIIA's many years ago and have always deeply missed the "emotion" of listening to music on them, not to mention the sound stage they threw.

After a number of speaker auditions with my wife (my music and movie partner, among many other things!) I suggested, out of frustration, we audition Maggies. After less than a minute into our audition she quietly handed me the credit card and smiled.

My younger son has recently moved out so I am giving him my Paradigms and moving into an admittedly small room: 11 x 13 x 8. It will be used exclusively for Movies and Music. I am determined to make the Maggies sing.

My wife and I are Movie Nuts and I am also a music lover so I am trying to have the best of both worlds in one room.....let the adventure begin....as soon as the painter finishes and the carpet arrives!

I am using my MG-IIIa's with CC3 (earlier model of your CC5) and MC1's in a 7.1 set-up. Sounds good to me. I want a center speaker-stand woofer but it won't fit my current set-up, alas. Fortunately it's a small room so it's not a big deal; in a bigger room I would want that center woofer.

I listened to B&W, Paradigm, and Velodyne subs in the $3k - $5k range but ended up with a pair of Rythmik F12's and have been happy.

Budget for (or make) some sound panels and it will really help in that small room. You'll lose a bit of ambiance but gain a much better FR and imaging, and greatly enlarge the sweet spot. It will also allow you to place the 1.7's closer to the walls so you don't give up as much room.

FWIWFM - Don

Thanks Don. The Rhythmic F12 seems to be a favorite, what is your crossover frequency setting for the Sub....please....if you don't mind me asking. Would you mind telling me your wiring scheme for the twin subs? Is it stereo for the LR's. LFE only. LR plus LFE. I am inexperienced at the finer points of sub integration. Any advice would be appreciated.

When you set up your new room, how far will your 1.7s be from the walls?

I am planning to have the CC5's with the DWM woofer and the 1.7's about 3 ft from the back wall and the 1.7's 2 ft from the side walls...all in a LCR plane. Seating will be about 2 ft from the back wall on easily moved comfy recliner type individual chairs. I understand my space is tight. Wall treatments will be used as required.

I am using my subs unconventionally, in parallel with my MG-IIIa's driven by an active crossover. Bearing in mind my Maggies may play a little lower than yours, I am crossing at around 50 Hz. I have a nice measurement system I used to help dial it all in; REW seems to be a favorite around here, with Omnimic another option. I use R+D with a cheap preamp and expensive (Earthworks) measurement mic. The advantage of this scheme is that I am not at the mercy of the AVR's bass management; to it I am running full-range L/R and no sub. However, bass management is not the trial it used to be.

If you have an AVR like the Denon 4311 that supports dual subs it will handle it for you. Otherwise, if you are running duals, it is a big subject and some trial and error is needed to integrate them well.

I would suggest using the LFE output of you AVR and letting it deal with integrating the subs and bass management. I would start with the usual (THX) crossover of 80 Hz and get everything going, then decide if you want to start piddling with all the settings. I have tried and heard on other systems the "plus" approach and generally found it was very hard to get the sub and mains (L/R) speakers to work together well. I would stick with using the sub conventionally and letting the AVR handle bass management. I realize that goes against Magnepan's suggested way, but I don't like driving the panels full-range if I can avoid it. I didn't have problems running them full-range for (most) music (Telarc 1812 and some organ recordings aside), but for HT use there is just too much LF energy and the panels don't handle it well.

IMO - Don

Thanks again Don, your info was very helpful. My Pre-Processor is the Emotiva UMC-1. I believe it is very flexible in terms of bass management, but some say it is flawed. I will find out sooner than later. I will make an investment in REW and "voice the room" after the dust settles and I become familiar with the Maggies as they break in and the rooms "earprint" Again thanks for taking the time to respond.

NP.

Save money for some room treatment; it can make a huge difference in the sound.

Don, excellent advice. I too played around with different settings in my AVR before deciding Audyssey did the job at least as well and with a lot less headaches on my part. I have an NAD t785HD AVR that handles system setup quite well on its own, plus I've found that NAD's NAD Audyssey MultEQ sounds best to my ears vs, Audyssey's own version. Audyssey set the crossover at 50Hz front and 110Hz surround (that's an area that still needs improvement but I haven't found a set of small surrounds that match up well with the 1.6QR fronts).

When I want to simulate surround from 2-channel music sources, I found PLII Music mode gives the best sound.

Have some questions for the gang

Anyone compare the CC3 with the CCR & can comment on sound differences? Big jump in price - is it worth it? I have 3.6's as fronts & currently use the CC3.

Also, what about the bass stand vs the DWM woofer panel?

Besides cost, my other concern is the complex bass mgmt. Good or bad, I use 80 hz and let the chips fall where they may. The Magnepan method may work just fine but does not appeal to me since it seems to require another set of interconnects from the front preamp outs to the sub, in my room setup that's about 45 ft run - yuck. Not interested and not an elegant solution, IMO.

The ideal would be a processor that had independent Xovers, but as fellow Pioneer owners know, we don't have that option.

How about leaving the sub as yes in the proc, set Xover to 80 and just run the CCR center output to the woofer panel first - it strips off the bass & sends the rest to the CCR....has anyone done it this way?

All thoughts are welcome. I am probably going to audition the CCR in a few weeks.