Building a system around Maggies

dobermann -- Sun, 07/31/2011 - 09:21

Hi All
Im gonna be setting up a new system, and my choice of speakers are the Magnepans.
Probably first the 1.7, then the 20.1
I think they are the absolute best buys in audio today, and ive always loved planar sounds. I used to be an Apogee nut before..
Id like to have amplificaiton which i dont need to upgrade, or change and is built to last me a while too, and can drive any speakers i will throw at it.
Im considering perhaps Audio Research, McIntosh and even the Parasound JCs.. can i also get away with a high powered intergrated from McIntosh maybe? Or better for me to go monoblocks or Bi-amps?
Anyone with experience in driving maggies, and also does anyone use a sub for the 1.7s?
Sources - likely a good one box cd/sacd player, and vinyl for sure
Thanks to anyone with such experiences to share
Cheers
Raj
Singapore

ilxman99 -- Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:34

I owned 1.6s for several years but will limit my informed comments to the sub question, as my system was powered by now-vintage components that are no longer current. I would highly recommend REL subs. I mated a Storm III (new-generation RELs should prove even better) with the 1.6s with stunning results--since my experience up to that point was that no sub could seamlessly (i.e., inaudibly) match a fast planar. Every other sub combo I'd heard made the sub glaringly obvious and discontinuous with the panels.
However, a few tips for the wise: a) the included spikes for the sub made a night/day difference (at least on my carpeted floor); b) use the recommended connection to your amp, which allows the sub to share the amp's characteristic sound with the panels; c) turn the volume control lower than you'd suspect; and d) turn the crossover freq MUCH lower than you'd suspect.
It took a day of fiddling with positioning ,etc. but when I was done, despite training all my faculties on that sub, I could not identify it as a sound source on either "fast" bass tunes or the lowest of synth-bass and organ blasters. Note that in my room I had the panels almost 5' out into the room yet the crossover freq that locked everything in was...28Hz! Yes, I realize that doesn't make sense given that the panels couldn't come anywhere near that freq, but the mfr's suggestion of a low starting point for the crossover is for real. I'll let the internet experts explain why, but that was my experience. Also, the perfect volume level for the sub was surprisingly low (relative to my expectations). FWIW, JHb uses JL subs with his Maggies so you might want to explore that avenue as well (they also have room EQ controls).

thotdoc -- Tue, 08/09/2011 - 05:12

Hi-

I'm using a Quad sub that, to my ears works very well.

BTW, the little Quad speakers (with ribbon super tweeters) marry the Maggies in my surround system. Extremely realistic and precise. System moves a lot of air.

staxguy -- Tue, 08/09/2011 - 09:36

Hi, Dobermann,
While too be honest, I don't like the sound of McIntosh amps in general, as they have sounded too sluggish to my ears compared to Mark Levison gear, say, over the years, the latest McIntosh MC601 monoblocks have a wonderful sense of ease. 600W/channel. Great sound. Like Classe CT-M600, but warmer, in a good way!
I've listened to the 1.7's and they do some things extremely right (snap!), and others not so well compared to a monitor like the 802 diamond (lack of full-frequency sound). My hi-fi friend, who sells Magnepans highly recommends trying the B&W PV1 subwoofer (the little ball one), and it does look amazing, and work better than the largest REL, in some installations.
In the subwoofer department, I've owned a Velodyne F1500R ages back, and can attest that musical subwoofer integration is no easy feat, although home theatre (my intended purpose), or musical production use is another thing, with prodigious bass.
I've always considered the 20.1 myself, but you might want to think about the 3.7.
If inital price is a current issue, skip thinking about the Monoblocks and get the 1.7 or 3.7's and an affordable amp you can audition them with. Skip the sub, as well.
Alot of people have attested to the buget-minded Parasound JC-1 monoblocks in their hi-fi systems, but I've only used the HCA-2200II myself, and didn't like it much, although a friend loves a monoblock'ed pair of 'em in his system.
For a very budget approach, try something like a Rotel 980BX ($300ish on EBay), Rotel 990BX (more$), or a Rotel Michi pre-pow stack (more$, harder to find, gorgeous). On hard to drive speakers like the B&W 801 Series 3's, I settled on a Rotel 980BX after auditioning other amps like the Aragon 8008, Parasound HCA-2200II, YBA 2, on the same system. The Rotel had no exemplary qualties, but it was very cheap, and did everything well. Sort of like a B/B+ student.
If Ilxman99 recommends the REL Storm III vs the Studio III reference, then I'd say check out the PV1, if you can. If it sucks, let me know. :D! I can then write it off my check/cheque-list..
As for sources, there is the Logitech Squeezebox Touch on the really affordable side, and also the Marantz SACD/CD player (see elsewhere) that sounds relaxed and good, hi-fi wise. I'm in line for a source-level upgrade, myself, I'd say...Good luck.
Staxguy

Steven Simon -- Mon, 08/15/2011 - 20:38

I've heard a lot of interesting things from reviewers I respect about matching amps to Maggies, not all of which is reconcilable. so for example, one reviewer who's by and large pretty sensible -- I think it was Jonathan Valin or Dick Olsher -- said that you really need a few hundred high quality watts to get the most out of 1.7's (which I've got in my system BTW), while another -- in this case Wayne Garcia -- says that the combination of the Cronus Magnum integrated amp with 90 watts/channel of tube power got great results when matched with 1.7's.
my question for you all is, Who is right? Or if both sides are right, what principle reconciles these two views?
Many thanks for an interesting discussion.
s

Josh Hill -- Tue, 08/16/2011 - 20:15

The thing is, a factor of 10 in amplifier power only translates into about twice the subjective loudness. Furthermore, power specs don't often do a very good job of expressing the actual capability of the amplifier with a musical signal. Amplifiers have different overload characteristics, can deliver more or less current into a 4 ohm load (the nominal impedance of Maggies), and have different peak headroom, which means that an amplifier with a higher power rating can actually start to distort before an amplifier with a lower one.

Add to that the fact that different people listen to different kinds of music at very different levels. So it's quite possible for one person to swear that 90 watts is all you need, while another swears you need 1000. Chances are, they're both right, for their room and their listening habits. Which makes that kind of argument kind of sterile.

That being said, Maggies are inefficient speakers and can lap off power. If you put 1000 watts on them, they'll use most of it happily on the louder works, if you play them at something approaching natural levels (few audiophile systems can get to natural levels with all musical material, so we have to settle for almost). But whether that capability will be of use to you is something only you can decide, in your actual listening environment. About the only thing I can say is that, by my informal count of Maggie owners, the big amp people seem to be in the majority.

Steven Simon -- Wed, 08/17/2011 - 21:00

All good points. My listening space is 14X24 and although I occasionally crank it up, I don't listen at headbanging levels and tend to avoid large orchestral works that demand to be listened to at realistic levels. I'd think that the watts question wouldn't be so crucial. What interests me, though, is the view that the more quality power an amplifier is capable of delivering, the more detail it reveals at lower listening levels, esp, with Maggies. Have you heard this?
Thanks again
s

Josh Hill -- Wed, 08/17/2011 - 22:45

I have heard that, or opinions that are similar enough. But then I've also heard the argument that smaller amplifiers are sweeter sounding. Whatever the differences, they're usually pretty subtle in modern high end amps of conventional design, as long as you don't drive the amplifier into distortion.

earwaxxxer -- Mon, 08/15/2011 - 16:16

I have been tweaking the MMG's for some years now, and the system around them. I have got beaucoup satisfaction from the class D/T amplification department, using a computer based squeezebox server/dac (Transporter). I would look at the new class D areana first for best bang for the buck with the thirsty maggies. They do like power! You can get buy with 50wpc if you dont get too loud. More like 150-200wpc is more ideal. I would start with a mid power class T and go from there. Not much money and you can always use it as a desktop amp. I will also add - I have completely replaced the crossovers in the MMG's several times. The higher end Maggies should have better components, but dont expect SOTA.

Maggie MMG's (modded), Squeezbox Transporter, Emotiva XPA-2, HSU Research sub, Sub amp - Crown, MSB Link DAC lll, Bottlehead Quickie preamp (modded), JPS Labs Digital powercord, MIT Z-cord, JPS Labs Ultraconductor 2 interconnect and speaker wire

Josh Hill -- Wed, 08/17/2011 - 22:46

dobermann -- Fri, 09/16/2011 - 23:17

Thanks very much all of you, for the replies and advise
Now that the 3.7s are out, those are the ones i will get first. As for amplificaiton, budget is not really an issue, i just one set which will last and drive anything i throw at it. I will see if i can get a home audition of monoblocks from McIntosh [ MC2301], kRELL, Audio Research, PASS, ML etc and report my findings. It will be fun to see what drives the Maggies 3.7 best.
I will update it here
Cheers

dpod4 -- Thu, 09/22/2011 - 21:03

I have a VAC 300.1a sufficiently driving my 3.7s (150wpc tube amp), but I don't listen to them very loudly and I'm in a medium sized room. I've heard that the Pass Labs xa100.5 or xa160.5 are amazing with the Maggies if you have the room and the air conditioning to accomodate them.