The Official Magnepan Owners Thread - Page 9

I'm using a class D ICE amp from Wyred 4 Sound presently, and I owned two other class D amps from Nuforce previously (not ICE-proprietary design). Prior to the class D amps I owned a variety of SS amps and one hybrid tube amp (Summa you'll appreciate this-the 5150).

The interesting, common factor of all the class D amps I've owned is that they don't sound like anything. I know that sounds a bit wierd, but to my ears they simply don't have a sonic signature that can be described. For example, the last class A/B amp I owned was ATI's 2005 balanced amp. I liked it (and I think it's an underrated amp), but there was no denying its solid state sound (powerful, dynamic, and just a tad sterile compared to say, the Butler which has a nice combination of SS power and tube warmth (I really liked the Bulter too).

The class D amps I've owned have proven to be more or less transparent to associated gear, which is a feature I like and why I continue to use them now. Note that Wyred 4 Sound ICE tweaks the ICE modules used in their amplifiers, but I can't say that they sound significantly different than the Nuforce amps I owned. Ergonomically, the lack of weight, heat, and energy consumption of class D amps relative to other designs is also a plus.

There is one class D amp I've heard that definitely had a signature. It was by Bel Canto and I forget the model number due to time (~ five years). A prospective buyer of some old Martin Logan speakers I owned wanted to hear his Bel Canto with them. I had a Theta Casablanca II as a prepro (very musical unit) and the difference between my existing ATI amp the Bel Canto was obvious to both of us. The ATI had a very solid state sound while the Bel Canto sounded much warmer and tubelike (without the 3D palpability some tube gear can provide).

So in terms of class D, if nuetrality is what you're looking for you may want to consider Nuforce or Wyred 4 Sound. Conversely, if you're looking for a warmer sound you may want to try Bel Canto (with the important caveat that their amp designs may have changed since I last heard them-though I know they're still class-D).

Eric

I have had my MMG-C for a few days now--enough to test out with several movies and music concerts. I love this speaker and its a keeper, and it looks very high end in my HT.
I have to build a nice oak stand for it as I did for my MMGs.

Prior to the MMG-C I had used several other cheap center channel speakers (Polk, Insignia, Bose, etc), but never felt I was getting the best from my system. With the MMG_C I know I am there. For somebody who is looking to get the tonal quality of their MMGs from a center will like this speaker.

But is it a day-night difference?? I don't think so, but without a doubt I can say I trully enjoy watching movies and concert DVDs and listening to SACDs. The speaker looks like something that should cost $1000--its big and looks high end. It sounds very good and my sub integrates very well with it.

I will post jpegs. Currently, I am researching room acoustics and methods to improve my room. I know I will also need to upgrade my subwoofer in the near future.

Imu

Imu: Glad it's integrating well! It's not in the same ballpark as the CC3, but as with any Maggie, there will be times when you'll be like, "wow, my Insignia center couldn't do that" You want to hear my latest Maggie Moment? It sounds silly, but a lot of the time they are! But I was watching one of my favorite movies, National Lampoons Christmas Vacation. Well, there is a very funny scene where Clark goes to carve the turkey, and it basically implodes to reveal nothing but hot air and burned skin. Now I've seen this scene many times, but this was the first time on the Maggies. What I heard for the first time was the amt of detail that was involved in the chewing sound effects. It was audible before, but this time you got a real feel for just how much effort they were putting into chewing this nearly inedible meat, and the detail had me rolling!

It's just one of the reasons I love Maggies, but you can really turn into a detail junkie with these things.

elockett & anybody else....

Would you trade good 150 watt tube amps for 1000 watt icePower to drive your Maggie 3.6's?

Just looking for opinions...

If I may ask, what 150W amp would you be giving up?

Has anyone tried a BG 210i subwoofer with your Magnepans? How do you think it would be?

I have Rogue MonoBlocks, don't get me wrong I like them alot. Just wondering if I might like the BIG power sound more.... but I am considering bi-amping with them as well, but my economy may not let me keep both. As I said in another post I noticed my 1.6's in the basement seem to have more punch with a SS Rotel 1080 running them than my 3.6's do. Everything seems tighter until I start to crank the Rogue's. then things start to mesh better. The 1.6's being smaller panels and the Rotel putting out 200 into 8 ohm SS.

So I'm asking folks who run digital power and may have tried decent tubes... which way do you think you would go?

You have so much for comparisons avail. to you.

I was going to ask if it was possible to bi-amp and keep them both, it was my first thought.

Have you tried the 3.6s in the basement with the Rotel? Maybe what your hearing is the room or placement. You might want to start right there if the 1.6's are sounding better to you.

No, I haven't tried that, good suggestion, but I really don't want to learn that they indeed may sound better there. I want the living room to be the listening/home theater.

Plus I didn't mean to infer that the 1.6's sounded overall better than the 3.6r's. They don't. They just seem a touch quicker and tighter (same thing?) The 3.6's are still far and away better sounding ...fuller, bigger, more real an mellow too. Just always read that Maggies like power, and even if the Rogues were "the best" 150 watt tube amps out there (and I'm not saying they are), maybe significantly more power may be better. Oh, by the way I'm running a Rogue tube pre-amp for 2 channel. It has a pass through for the Integra 7.8 AV receiver to run the home theater. (but with the Rogues still powering the 3.6s.

I understand you don't WANT them to sound better in a spot you don't want them, really I do, but...rooms more often then not do not do what you want them to do.

What I want you to do is try is to prove to yourself, by moving them and using the Rotel, is that IF the 3.6's then sound even better then where they were, then whatever your problem is with the 3.6's in the living room, that replacing your tube amp is probably not going to fix the problem.
Bi-amping the 3.6's with what you have in mind would no doubt be pretty sweet but perhaps those dollars would be better spent on some type of acoustical room treatments, if you have none in place now.

Replacing or adding gear, while I love to do it myself, might not get down to the root of the problem, which I'm afraid is usually the room itself.
I know in most cases, new gear is an easier sell on a wife then putting panels of some sort around HER living room.
Who knows, your wife may be as wack as mine and like the look of large panels. I'd have a hell of a time even trying to get mine to part with Maggies in the living room, although that is not what I'm trying to suggest.

Well I'm sure the basement lends itself to better listeneing, It's bigger and has an acoustic ceiling versus drywall in the living room. I'm not opposed to acoustically treating the living room, I just don't know where to start nor how. The biggest problem may be the 60" SXRD Sony TV between the speakers. That can't change much.

I don't see how moving the 3.6 speakers to another room will tell me anything about what to do in the room they will be played in. I'm willing to learn though...

Anyone has tried the Zero-Autoformers with their Maggies? I am thinking about getting one, currently using Rogue Zeus to drive the 3.6Rs.

Look into products made by companies such as:
ASC
http://www.asc-home-theater.com/ht-products.htm
Echobuster
http://www.echobusters.com/roomspecials.html
and Real Traps
http://www.realtraps.com/

as well as DIY stuff that can be found in these forums, if you are handy and so inclined.
These forums can provide a wealth of knowledge on this subject and some insight as to where to even begin can also be found on the websites I just mentioned. Getting a room right can be quite a daunting task, to say the least, but probably where you'll find the greatest amount of enhanced system performance, even over that of the best and most powerful amps.
Being "willing to learn" is already a major step in the right direction.

Ideally, I think it would be best to borrow or purchase (with full money back guarantee) the ice amp and compare them at realistic, matched levels to determine which one you like best with the 3.6s.

If you can't have both amps on hand simultaneously and could only live with one or the other: I'd probably lean toward the ice amp based on the sound I'm enjoying via the Wyred 4 Sound combined with the opinion that the 3.6 would benefit from the higher power.

However, that's me: You may conclude that the Rouge provides more than enough loudness and prefer its sound to the ice amp. This is why I like option 1 (in house comparison with the 3.6) best.

Eric

+1 concerning the room, and the good news is that there are many options and tricks for combining room treatment with decor-a simple example: http://www.auralex.com/sonicprint/

Eric

Though I'm thoroughly enjoying the sound of my MMG's (combined with a pair of Rythmik servo subs), I may be moving up to 1.6s in the near-term as left-right mains for an unexpected reason. I think they're going to ultimately work better as the center channel than the brand new CC3 I recently acquired.
I've attached some admittedly crappy pics that illustrates my problem.

My living room has to serve tripple duty as a music/HT/living room. It's hard to see, but the CC3 occupies the space between the lowboy cabinet and TV riser. I like the look and location of the CC3, but a pending 120", 16:9 retractable will completely block it (the bottom of the screen must drop to a position a few inches below the CC3). The screen will drop just in front of the cabinets. I found a acoustically transparent (AT) option that could work, but not only would the CC3 have to be loacated at the bottom of the screen (less than optimal placement), the AT screen must be a powered type and as a result costs five times the price of the manual screen I was planning to use.

So, as much as I would like to use the CC3, I think it makes more sense to go with a pair of 1.6s in phantom mode (which ironically would be a grand version of Magnepan's recommended use of dual MMG-C or MC-1s as a center). The extra height of the 1.6's drivers would be much closer to the height of the screen (59"), and I would elevate the 1.6's approximately 10" to almost vertically center the 1.6's with the screen.

I would use the MMG's as rear surrounds in place of MMG-W's.

Thoughts?

Eloclett

I going to assume you're also keeping the plasma and that's actually the problem.
Is it possible to wall mount it, or get a TV stand to place behind that furniture, raising it by the 11" you need to put the CC3 on the shelf the plasma currently occupies?
If that's Salamander stuff we're looking at, they've got a new stand that would probably work great but I havn't priced that thing myself and is likely fairly expensive.
A wall mount is no doubt the cheapest way around this entire dilemma.

Also, have you tried listening to these speakers in phantom mode yet?
I don't know and I realize you don't have them to try but a 12' spread might be pushing it a bit much to get a good phantom.
Maybe someone who's done 1.6's at near 12' will chime in.

Just thought I'd chime in with a suggestion of www.gikacoustics.com for room treatments. I've had excellent results with their stuff, and they have some really need products out now. The owner and one of their consultants are active on Audio Circle in the "Room Acoustics" forum.

You will find out that this topic has been debated many times in AVS forum threads. It typically starts with people claiming that the removal of dedicated CC speaker can lead to "better" sound quality. I would definitely agree that improperly positioned CC speaker or one that does not match L and R speakers will do more harm than good. In such a case, a phantom (or derived) center channel could be a better option.

However, there are numerous problems introduced by the lack of dedicated CC speaker.

1) It is considerably more difficult (if not impossible) to lock the dialogue to the screen. This situation leads to less than ideal experience for off-axis listeners.

2) Dialogue can become intelligible without dedicated center channel speaker. The most common outcome is tendency to increase volume after straining to hear and understand the dialogue.

3) Several AVS forum members tested phantom center configurations and examined Dolby specs. They concluded that the lack of a dedicated CC (e.g., true discrete 5.1 configuration) would automatically engage Dynamic Range Control irrespective of pre-pro or receiver settings. Dynamic compression then becomes a serious problem with certain movies depending on how metadata and downmixing are implemented. IIRC, War of the Worlds was cited as good example for DRC kicking in without dedicated CC speaker. See for example:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec0.../surround5.asp

There is also an interesting dichotomy between film and music industries when it comes to center channel implementation. Film producers have always relied on center channel to place the voice, whereas music industry has never had the concept of center channel. Interesting discussion about speaker positioning can be found at:

http://www.soundoctor.com/surround.htm

Maggie CC3 is very similar design wise to MMG. It should blend really well, perhaps better than with MG 1.6. It would probably be hard to make CC3 blend well with MG 3.6 not only because of the true ribbon tweeter in MG 3.6 but also because there is a huge difference in image size and dispersion characteristics. Actually, I am surprised that CC3 even works that well because its radiation pattern would likely result in very limited horizontal dispersion.

For those that use MG 3.6 in HT set-up, Wendell Diller has been offering CCR teasers for the past three years. Ditto with Maggie sub. Even the most recent mystery speaker revealed at CES 2009 was disclosed in private screening nearly two years ago. I am not sure why it takes such a long time for Magnepan to productize new models assuming, of course, they were serious in the first place.

BB52: It would be ergonomically bad to raise the plasma any higher than it already is. I'm looking up at it now, but because my recliner points my line of sight up when I recline it works OK-so long as I don't elevate the TV any higher than it is now (the top of the plasma (Sammy 58") is already within 2' of the ceiling.

Further, I considered an independent plasma stand (and I'm aware of the one Salamander makes-I believe in costs ~$600), but the problem with everyone I looked at is that their base is longer by several inches than the depth of the fireplace landing. It is probably hard to tell from the pics (such as they are) but the Salamander lowboy is resting on a fireplace landing. The lowboy BARELY fits. Salamander also makes a neat plasma mount that bolts directly to the lowboy, but even the depth of its rails would push the front of the lowboy over the landing. Further, the aforementioned TV height problem would apply.

The distance between the 1.6 midrange/bass panels would be about 11', and each inner edge of the panels would be about a foot from the edge of the screen.

I have not tried phantom mode yet but will on the MMGs once the screen arrives to get an idea of how it will sound (Good Idea BB52).

Eric

On paper that's true, but I wonder how true it will be in practice? I had to spend many nights on the sofa to the right of the pic while my master bedroom was being renovated. You'll note a pair of satellite speakers on either side of the TV (KEF 3000 series satellites). When watching TV on the sofa I was outside the boundary of the right speaker, yet voices still appeared to emminate from the TV. Note that my TV system (Onkyo TX-SR705) is independent of the HT/music system and it doesn't have a center channel either (again a placment issue-I have KEF's matching center speaker). I was pleasantly surprised by this because I expected the sound to shift to the closest speaker (right when listening from the sofa but this has not occurred. Will the Maggies react the same way? That remains to be seen.


Unfortunately; good points in both cases. The DRC issue especially bugs me. I guess I"ll just have to try it and see how good or bad the sound is. Simply put, the current idea I have in mind is the least expensive way (I don't technically have to do 1.6s) to get around this problem but as you point out, the question will be what is the sonic price? If it's too high, I can consider other options.


I would think that the tonal blend would be equally good either way. All three speakers (CC3, MMG, 1.6) use the same type of drivers for the midrange and treble. I agree that you could get a tonal mismatch between a CC3 and 3.6 because of the latter's true ribbon, but again they share a common midrange driver type so I'm not sure how noticeable this would be in practice.


Well, they do curve the CC3's midrange and quasi-ribbon in an attempt to address this. I don't recall the angle of its horizontal disperation though. In my room, it would never be more than 30 degrees off axis.

Eric

Anyone try hanging a CC3 from the ceiling so that it's suspended above the flat panel display? And what method did you use?

I tried listening to it sitting on a box on the floor & aimed at me to simulate what it might sound like on a shelf under the plasma. There seemed to be more disconnect from what was taking place on the screen, which is what I thought would be the case. Currently it sits on top of a RPTV.

I'm curious what others think about "over" vs "under" with the CC3.

Thanks!

ss9001
Steve

Steve,

I'm glad you shared you're observation concerning the sound of the CC3 below your screen because I considered doing the same thing for my pending (in transit) front projection screen. Specifically, I would lower the height of my Salamander Synergy lowboy by 10" (this is where the modular feature of Synergy pays off). A pic of the lowboy as is (without proposed 10" height reduction can be found here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=258. This in turn would allow me to get the bottom of the visible screen two inches from top of the CC3. The two inch gap is the screen's bottom black border. With this setup, the CC3 would be elevated about a foot above the floor within the lowboy.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, you don't think this idea will work well because voices from movies will be easily located at the CC3 below the screen? Is the CC3 more difficult to localize above your TV? I don't have this option but I'm curious.

Thanks.

Eric

Yes I think so...plus consider these generalities -

- I think it's fair to say that "most" of the time, heads are usually not found at the bottom of the screen. "Most" of the time, they are centered or slightly above centerline. This correlates to good composition in photography where the main subject is supposed to be located in 1/3 quadrants, that is 1/3 from each side, like a good portrait.

- If the above is generally true, then a center speaker with less vertical dispersion (like the CC3), will be farther away from actor's faces at the bottom of the screen than the top.

- If the speaker is aimed at the listener and has decent vertical dispersion, then it may be perfectly fine to locate it at the bottom of screen, especially if the display is front projection, since you can put the speaker on a stand, change the screen height, etc. Certainly many do this & are happy

I've found most stands & cabinets with shelves are too inflexible with speakers dimensions like the CC3. 11" high is more than most companies are providing for shelf height. If you locate the speaker on the bottom shelf, then the distance between the typical position of faces on the screen is more than if the speaker were located right at the top.

Surprisingly, I found having the speaker close to the floor didn't make that much difference with 5.1 music, probably because there's some of the vocals in all 3 front channels. But with a mono track movie, I could definitely tell some difference - voices seemed a little disconnected from the actor's lip motions. I don't notice it when speaker is on top of the RPTV.

But that's me...someone else may not be sensitive to it or care

The Salamander Synergy could be a good solution since you can customize it..but it's too massive for my spacing between the 3.6's & allowing for a large sub. So I'm looking at stands like the smaller BDI Icon/Deploy.

ss9001

Good points in your response about top versus bottom placement. I wish top placement was an option (the sreen drop down header effectively negates it).

Concerning your quote, it's interesting that you mentioned it because I'm looking in to something like that now. My old, beloved Theta Casablanca II prepro had a feature called "center channel spread" which was designed to mimic what you've experienced with 5.1 music. It lets the user divert some of the center channel signal from the center speaker to the left and right mains via user-defined effect (0 = no effect to 100 which essentially mimics phantom mode). I use a Denon AVP-A1 prepro now and I'm investigating if it provides a similar feature.

Eric

As it turns out, my Denon prepro does indeed have the ability to redirect center channel output to the L and R mains at two different levels of effect. The feature is called "center image", and I'm definitely going to try it out when my screen arrives (this coming week) with the CC3 mounted just below the screen within my lowboy.

Eric

Just an update on my Mye stands...

After going through the hassle of having the stands on, then removing the struts (to mimic the stands that come with the stock 3.6s), and then putting them back...I'm 100% certain that the bass is improved. It's there in greater quantities, sounds a bit more rounded out in the bottom end, and still just as punchy as it was before (i.e. don't notice any MORE punchiness)

My second observation is a slightly less confident one, cause I was already getting a nice, big soundstage before the Mye stands. But it seems to me that the speakers are disappearing a tad more than they were before. The best way I can describe it is that the center fill is more balanced with the left and right, thus giving the impression that it's more coherent from side to side, and extending beyond the width of each speaker.

I actually didn't think I'd care for the look of the Mye stands, but you can't even really tell you have them on there unless you view the speaker from the side. And even then, it's far less utilitarian than I expected.

I don't know if any of you guys are Amos Lee fans, but he's my favorite artist right now. "Skipping Stone" off of his Supply and Demand album is one of my favorite cuts, and this is easily the clearest and most present his voice has been. I'm not saying it's the Mye stands that are the cause, cause I've made a lot of improvements in a short time and I'm sure it's the overall impact of them. But this is a very good track for hearing how well the vocals are dead center and very well balanced with the whole piece. When I listen to "Night Train" (same album), it actually DOES make me want to give the Myes more credit because this is a track I am very, very familar with and the instruments are sounding even more separate than before. There is some instrument that sounds similar to the pouring of a bag of sand (best way I can describe it) that used to only be distinct from the plucking of the string instrument (mandolin?), but now it's distinct from the rest of the ensemble, too.

Anyway, I have no doubt about the bass...it's clearly better with the Mye stands, and that impact alone is worth the price. YMMV, but I give them a thumb's up!

Under the TV tends to be closer to the floor which tends to lead to less desirable reflections.