Magnepans and power requirements
EasyBigFella -- Wed, 11/28/2007 - 01:05
Hey guys,
I'm thinking about buying some new "budget" speakers in the next month. For a long time I've been deeply interested in Magnepans, but the power recommendations I find to be intimidating. From what I understand, Maggie's are a 4 ohm load, and the recommended wattage for the smaller Maggie's is an amp that can deliver 100W into 4 ohms? The thing is that I have a Rotel RA972 integrated that is rated at 60W at 8 ohms. It's a good component, and I would imagine that it could do at least 100W into 4 ohms. I'll have to check the specs in the manual next time I'm at my parents' house.
What happens if the amp isn't strong enough for the Maggie? Will it fry the amp because the panel can't convert that current into mechanical energy? Will it push the amp too hard consistently and wear it out just playing music at reasonable volumes? I am trying to make sense of the relationship between wattage and speaker resistance, and I think looking at Maggie's might be instructive.
If JV or any other Maggie fans/owners could enlighten me, that would be great. I want to know if the MMG is a potential mate for my system or if I would need to seek new amplification to drive it properly. Obviously it isn't as hard to drive as the 20.1, but it seems like the inherent design demands a certain amount of watts.
To be honest, EBF, I don't know whether the Rotel RA972 is sufficient unto the task. I kinda doubt it. Of course, a lot depends on: 1) how big your listening room is; 2) what volume you typically listen at; 3) what kind of music you typically listen to (small-scale or large, classical or pop); and 4) how much power the Rotel puts out into 4 ohms.
The MMG has a "rated" sensitivity of 86dB at 8 ohms, but, since it is a 4-ohm speaker, it is probably more like 83dB sensitive. That's low. On the plus side, it is an easy speaker to drive. My experience with smaller 'Pans suggests that you don't necessarily need a mega-amp, but you do need power--I drove the MG1.6QRs so beautifully with a very affordable Goldmund SRM250, rated at 200W RMS into 4 ohms, that Maggie's Wendell Diller thought it was the best sound he'd heard from the 1.6s. Something like a $2k 250Wpc Parasound Halo A21 would also be perfect.
You're not going to "blow up" THE MMGS by underpowering them--at least, you're not if you don't insist on playing Dafos at +100dB SPLs. But to get the dynamic range the speaker is capable of, you're probably going to need a bigger boat.
Ok...
Well, until I get Rotel's specs on the amp, I can't say for certain what its 4 ohms output is- their website is screwed up right now and I can't get the .pdf manual for the amp, so I need to wait until I'm at my folks to check the specs. I'm sure it can do at least 100W into 4ohms.
My listening room is very small, basically a small bedroom. I listen almost entirely to small and large scale classical. Lots of solo piano but also some orchestral music. I don't play music loudly at all... only at reasonable volumes for the most part.
So what you're saying it that you can drive the smaller Maggie's with a less-than-qualified amp? I initially thought that it was dangerous to do so- that the load would fry the amp's output section if it couldn't supply the amount of wattage that the speakers needed to turn it back into energy. Maybe I don't have my facts straight. From what I understand at this point, Maggie's are less resistive than a lot of other speakers (4 ohms), but because of the physical properties of the drivers, they don't produce much SPL's with a given amount of wattage? 83 db sensitivity is quite low.
I'm not concerned about extracting every bit of performance that the MMG can give. All I care is that my Rotel can drive them enough to get all of their essential virtues across. I can always get a good, used power amp later on and use the Rotel as a preamp. Otherwise, I'll have to settle for a good dynamic 2-way like the B&W 685. I just don't want to purchase something if my amp will make them sound like Stravinsky is coming out of a tin can. BTW, what are the sonic qualities of a speaker being driven without enough wattage?
So perhaps the main caveat with Magnepan is that those thinking about adopting often have to purchase a new amplifier to accommodate the speakers?
EBF,
If you listen to classical at moderate volumes in a small room, I think the Rotel will be just fine, assuming, of course, that it is not flummoxed by 4-ohm loads (and it shouldn't be).
Jon
Hey John,
Thanks for your guidance on the issue. I've been doing some research on the Maggie's and I think I now understand the power issues. I am set on buying the MMG's. I've been thinking about Maggie's for too long now and there's no going back. I listen almost entirely to small and large scale classical, and it sounds like the MMG might be the ticket for a budget speaker. The reverberations of the acoustic space are just as important to me as the actual ensemble. The echoes of the concert hall give me goose bumps.
I figure that I should be able to tame any problems by way of the tweeter resistor and the tone controls on my Rotel. Later on I can get myself a good used power amp so the speakers can breathe a bit more.
-Dave
BTW,
Have any of you guys tried out the Parasound A21's little brother the A23? That looks like a good option to pair with one of the little Maggie's. The A21 is a bit expensive, although it would be great with the 1.6 or higher.
JV, I just read your ARC 610T review and saw in your list of associated equipment that Jim Winey backed a truck up to your house and delivered every Maggie model currently made in White Bear Lake. Being a long-time 'pan head, having owned the MGIIB, Tympani IV, and currently a highly modded Tympani IVA, I'm glad that you're discovering the magic these speakers bring to music reproduction.
I want to suggest an item that will bring out even more of these speaker's virtues, the Mye Stand, by Grant VanderMye. Grant's product line includes stands for all Maggie models, and he will even do custom work.
I don't know of one Maggie owner who has not been greatly impressed by the benefits derived from these stands, the major one being that they stiffen the entire panel and have brass points to stabilize the speakers. The sonic benefits are easily heard in a tighter, deeper bass, and better imaging. These stands don't intrinsically change the nature of the Maggie sound. Instead, they allow the attributes of the speaker to fully manifest. I found that I didn't really hear what my speakers were capable of until I got these stands.
LL
hi llad ,
I have also Tympanis IVa on my setup. I noticed that you have the speakers reversed (tweeters in the front) . Could you explain me why ? Did you reversed the phase aswell ?
Hi llad,
How do the Mye stands compare to Sound Anchor? The Sound Anchors are a lot cheaper but it doesn't look like they brace the panel as strongly as the Myes.
Dave
EasyBigFella, you should not have a problem. I recently purchased a pair of MMG's and power them from the front left and right channels of an Onkyo TX-SR605 rated at 90watts into 8ohms with a caution note in the manual on powering 4ohm loads. My room is 15X42 with 8.5 cieling and an old 15"sealed down firing DBX sub powered by a 20 year old Technics 35watt per channel reciever(as a bass amp). This "Rube Goldberg" system plays very loud when nessasary. Eventually I will decided on the components of my new and final system, but the MMG's have given me a sense of the Magnepan sound in my room and where larger models would need to be placed.
EasyBigFella wrote:Hi llad,
How do the Mye stands compare to Sound Anchor? The Sound Anchors are a lot cheaper but it doesn't look like they brace the panel as strongly as the Myes.
Dave
EBF,
I have to say that Grant VanderMye makes a great product. I bought stands for my Tympani IVa speakers from him based on the reviews I read of his products, and I am very happy with the results. These stands do not add or subtract anything to the sound, but bring out the virtues of the Magnepans to a fuller extent. Mye Sound is a home based business, run out of Grant's garage. Grant is very easy to communicate with, and gave me a lot of personal attention, including making a couple of modifications to his stock design.
I highly recommend these stands.
Larry
Quote:I recently purchased a pair of MMG's and power them from the front left and right channels of an Onkyo TX-SR605 rated at 90watts into 8ohms with a caution note in the manual on powering 4ohm loads.
I've researched the issue and I've discovered that the MMG is way easier to drive than I initially thought. In fact, I came across this article by Dick Olsher:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/Magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles.htm
I have the "updated" version of that amp- the RA972- nonetheless, Mr. Olsher said he was able to push the MMG to its limits. Pretty impressive for a budget 60W integrated. Basically what it boils down to is that the smaller Magnepans don't have the wattage requirements of their bigger siblings, but they still do require a strong output stage. The "double the wattage at 4 ohms" idea is an indication that your amp can maintain a grip on a 4 ohm load.
Well, I've finally acquired a pair of Magnepans. I found a semi-local gentleman in Connecticut who was selling a pair of SMGc's for a low price, so after a bit of researching I decided it would be a good, cheap introduction to the world of planar speakers. In case you don't remember, the SMGc is the predecessor to the MMG.
I am floored to say the least. I had no experience with planar speakers, and after 24 hours I can safely declare myself a convert. A quick listen verified what everyone has always said about them- the clarity in the midbass, the octave-to-octave coherency, the superior transient response, and the truckloads of top-end air, make classical music a delight. Listening to Andrew Manze playing Corelli violin sonatas, for example, a three-octave sweep downward, and it still sounds like the same violin in the same room. The harmony of double-stops is crystal clear. The low, throaty register of the violin has none of those nasty colorations that obscure its character. The bite of the bow against the string is very quick. Being able to clearly identify the cello and lower viola parts, and to make out clearly the inner voices of a piece, makes chamber music thrilling. The funny thing is that for the first few minutes after I fired them up, I didn't know what to think. The low coloration makes familiar recordings suddenly sound unfamiliar.
I found an interesting Audioasylum post about the SMGc, written by a Maggie veteran, who confirmed the two small caveats that I find these speakers possess. He did note that the newer MMG and MG12 have improved greatly in those aspects. The SMGc is a bit tame in the dynamics department, so although solo piano sounds superb, it's not what it could be compared to the newer Magnepans. They also have a slight darkness in the midrange (which perhaps makes placement a bit easier). Until I get spade adapters from Magnepan, though, I'm forced to use crappy old Audioquest spool cable, which has a harsh midrange and muddy lows. When I get my Anticables hooked back up, I'm sure the sound will improve. These issues however pale in comparison to what they do so well. I'm hooked.
EBF,
I thought I would reply to your original post, as I own MG1.6s, have had extensive experience with MG12s, and have driven both with a wide range of amplifiers--ranging from a roughly 50 Wpc NAD receiver on up to big hybrid integrated amps that put out upwards of 500 Wpc. I've also run my 1.6s with the Parasound A23. With those remarks as background, here are my thoughts:
1. As near as I can tell, the smaller Maggies (1.6s on down) can be driven quite well by integrated amps, provided that they can do a good job with four ohm loads--typically meaning that the amplifiers can deliver a lot of current on demand.
Long ago, for example, I drove both my MG12s and MG1.6s with a very modest NAD receiver and enjoyed quite good results, even in a medium-large room (although I tend to listen at moderate levels). The key, of course, was that the NAD was very comfortable with four ohm loads and had a deceptively beefy power supply. In fact, that old NAD routinely outperformed any number of ostensibly higher-powered amps that weren't capable of driving four ohm loads very well.
2. Though it is a generalization (and therefore potentially misleading), I found that the MG12 and MG1.6 both had what I'll call "sweet spot" windows in terms of the volume levels at which they gave optimal results. Below the sweet spot threshold, the sound tended to seem a little compressed and not as open as one might have wished. But once the sweet spot threshold was reached, the sense of "compression" went away and optimal openness unfolded with beautiful results.
But here's the trick: While you can easily get over the lower threshold of the "sweet spot" window with a moderately powerful integrated amp, you'll need a whole lot more power to explore the upper limits of the "sweet spot." This. I suspect, is why you'll hear some enthusiasts complain that "you can never get enough power to do Maggies justice."
3. Assuming your Rotel is good with four ohm loads (and I assume it will be), I think it will make a fine starting point for Maggie exploration. Just be aware that it may not have enough dynamic headroom to play really big orchestral pieces (think Mahler's 8th) at full-throttle levels.
4. I had the opportunity to use the Parasound/Halo A23 with my 1.6s for many months and found it was a quite good match--offering noticeably more dynamic "sock" and overall refinement than the aforementioned NAD receiver.
5. Listening Tastes: Your mileage may vary, but my opinion is that Maggies do not marry well with electronics that are even slightly prone to sounding bright, thin, or raw from the midrange on up. Also, Maggies tend to ruthlessly expose amps that are even slightly wimpy in the mid-bass department. Conversely, Maggies reward amps that offer smooth, coherent, open-sounding highs and midrange (true of most speakers, actually, but particularly the case with Maggies).
6. MG1.6-specific hint: My experience is that the speaker sounds not just a little but a lot better when bi-wired.
7. General Maggie hint: These babies need a lot of break-in (think 100 hours plus). Caution: The first 100 hours or so can be a pretty rough ride (as in, painfully bright, edgy sound that sets your teeth on edge). But don't give up: My 1.6s smoothed out (and warmed up) nicely over time.
I hope these comments shed some light on your Maggie quest. Good luck.
Chris Martens
Editor, Avguide.com/Playback/The Perfect Vision
Congratulations on the Maggies. I've lived for 14 years with a pair of MG3.5 and could happily have done another 14. I would have bought the MG20.1 if they had a local dealer or if the people at their (famous) NY dealership weren't so rude and obnoxious.
I ultimately went for the Magicos, which do some things better than the Maggies and a few things not as good, and cost twice as much.
I still think you can't go wrong with a Maggie and I have yet to hear a speaker that would give you better sound quality per $ spent.
Oh yes, feed them with the best amps you can afford to get the best results, although they will work reasonably well with more modest amps.
Thanks for the considerations guys.
My Rotel seems to drive the SMGc effortlessly. However, I have no point of reference since these are the first pair I've owned and I haven't tried them with another amplifier. The SMGc at 87dB sensitivity is a smidgeon easier to drive than the MMG or MG12. I'd be interested to see how they perform with a beefier amp on something like Debussy's "La Mer" or Poulenc's Organ Concerto. Any orchestral stuff with big dynamic sections.
I noted in an earlier post that I thought the speakers had a darkness in the midrange; dropping my Anticables into the system (spade adapters arrived a week ago), and simply allowing my ear to adjust to their sound, has altered that perception. I have come across a sort of chicken-or-egg scenario, however. I've noticed a tad bit of brightness in the upper midrange and treble. I've tried moving the speakers around, but it persists. I've been lazy about addressing it however since it's only really pronounced in non-acoustic and rock music, and I listen almost exclusively to classical. The reason eludes me because it could be improper placement, or the Rotel (which is a tiny bit aggressive in the upper frequencies), or the room. I just don't care about it that much and it would probably go away in a larger space.
Magnepans are really picky about room and placement, aren't they? :wink:
Hmm.. I didn't have that much of an issue with my 3.5 in 3 different rooms.
The good news is that they project little or no sound from the sides, top or bottom, the bad news is that they need plenty of room behind them, as they issue a lot of sound that way (unlike most box speakers).
The trick is getting just right so you get decent bass reinforcement without getting the sound all muddled up by having them too close to the wall.
I suppose they SNGc would behave in a similar way?
Zeb
I installed the 1 dB tweeter attenuators last weekend and that has made a huge difference. They are much more well-balanced now in the upper frequencies. They do sound a tiny bit soft in the treble on an occasional recording, but that pales in comparison to the benefits. That reduction of glare in the mid/treble unveils a lot of detail that was before slightly foggy.
Post new comment