2. speakers
  3. 1066152146

Maggie 3.6R performance dilemma..

Maggie 3.6R performance dilemma..

Hi,

I hope I'm not abusing this forum with too many Magnepan posts; this is my third post in as many weeks!

I have used the forum as a research tool, reading through older threads to see what others are doing with their Maggie's. I've implemented some of what I've read, wherever possible, but so far I haven't been successful in extracting what I believe these speakers have to offer.

So I'm hoping for some new insights into the 3.6R's and also wanting to share some observations that may (or may not) be useful to potential Maggie owners.

First, I've rearranged things in my room a little to decrease the cubic feet of the listening space. Some previous feedback suggested that my room may be too big. The speakers now operate in a space as follows:

48'X28'X10' The 10' ceiling height is directly above the speakers, however this is a gallery and approximately 4 feet forward from the speakers the room opens into a cathedral ceiling which peaks at 28'.

I have the speakers on the long wall, but cannot place them centrally on the wall. They are 12' apart (centre to centre) with approximately 9' to the side wall from the right speaker and 27' to the left side wall.
They are 6.2 feet from the front wall (based on the Cardas rule of ceiling height times 0.618) 18 feet from the listening chair with 3 feet behind the chair to a very reflective rear wall. (I will try to dampen this with drapes in the near future).
Toe-in angle is low at about 5-7 degrees. I have the tweeters on the outside so prefer to keep a small toe-in angle to have the tweeters further from my ear than the mid/bass, as suggested in the Magnepan manual.
Naturally I have experimented with positioning. I have tried variations in all directions but have not attained what I consider to be acceptable sound for reasons to follow.

The basic plan on buying these speakers (used) was to play them at low volumes with my existing Conrad Johnson CAV 50 and spend a week or two trying more powerful SS amps from local dealers, then to buy a new pre/power or integrated, with a $4500 budget.

I tend to play jazz, acoustic, some classical (nothing too brutal) at louder than normal levels. I haven't used an SPL meter, so I don't have an actual level recorded, but opinions of the occasional guest tend to suggest that I listen on the loud side.

I first tried a Belles 250i integrated. My local dealer, who is very experienced in high-end and seemed to be familiar with the 3.6's suggested the modestly rated (125 watts into 8 ohms) Belles based on it's higher than normal current delivery (about 25 amps if I remember correctly) and it's 'musicality'. He advised against the Rotel RB1090 which has higher output, but is far less 'musical' (his words).

The Belles was clearly an accomplished integrated, but for my tastes way too bright and forward. I tried to tame the brightness by moving the speakers....but with little effect.

Next I tried a McIntosh MC 6500 integrated. This had some appeal, sounding more tube like and warmer. However, it quickly ran out of steam, with the powerguard warning indicators flashing on and off even at modest volume levels. It also lacked transparency, didn't image very well and just sounded compressed - obviously lacking power.

Feeling somewhat inclined toward persue the Mac sound for it's warmer presentation, I thought the new MC 252 power amp with autoformers might deliver, given it's 200 watts into 2,4,8 ohms and its better load handling capability with the autoformers.

Well, it sounded better, more dynamic, more transparent....however, it cut-out completely several times on louder passages, the PowerGuard indicators locked in the 'on' position until the signal was removed and the amps allowed to 'cool'.

I then considered trying the MC602 with 600 watts per channel, but now I'm up at $8k without a pre-amp!!

So, to take a breather I rigged up my old CJ CAV50, and to be blunt, despite its inability to play loud, it just sounds so much more musical than any of the other amps I've tried. It also does play quite loud. Almost as loud as the MC6500, without the significant fall-off in performance when overstretched. It also demonstrates to me that tube watts are really bigger than SS watts!! (LOL, yes I know a watt is a Joule/sec and can't be stretched or made any bigger with a tube - but I'll be darned if they don't 'sound' louder!)

So, I'm now hell bent on staying with tubes.

I'm looking at maybe some Cary V12 monoblocks or a VT100 MkII.....advice here would be greatly appreciated....do they have enough power for 3.6R's in a larger than average space?

Lastly, and perhaps most important, with the 4 amps that I've used so far, I'm missing some aspects of the sound presentation that I particularly enjoyed from my old monitors and from other speakers that I've used in the past, including Quad ESL57's. I don't know if this is due to the amp/power deficiencies, the room, or is inherent in the speaker presentation.

All 4 amps that I've used have been unable to open the soundstage width beyond the limits of the speakers. When I read about 'wall to wall' soundstage, well it just isn't happening, and I find that surprising and disappointing. I don't expect a 45' wide stage, but perhaps 4 or5 feet beyond the speakers ought to be attainable on some recordings? My QLN monitors opened a wider stage than I've heard from the Maggie’s. Also, using closely miked acoustic music, small jazz ensembles etc (The Steve Green Trio disc and Diana Krall live in Paris spring to mind), the musicians are gathered tightly within the space between the speakers, at times sounding like they are sitting in each others laps! It just isn't recreating the dimension of a live recording as I expected, given the parameters and dimensions of my room. Incidentally, I haven't moved the speakers since I tried the MC252, and on the Steve Green Trio recording, both guitars sounded overlapped, like the players were standing one behind the other. Now with my CJ CAV 50, there is a little separation between the two, not enough for it to sound realistic, but better than with the Mac.

So how can this just be a function of underpowered amplification? Is it something much more fundamental?....The stage width sounded no different on the MC252 than it does on my CAV 50....200watts versus 45watts, but the 45 watter improves separation and imaging within the confines of the stage. The 125w Belles probably opened the stage a little wider than the MC252, but barely noticeable.

To add to my dilemma, there is virtually no discernable lower octaves on most recordings, I mean no bass. Listening to Clapton's Unplugged, the bass impact on the track 'Old Love' is completely missing, as are other bass lines that I'm familiar with on this recording.

Do I have the speakers positioned incorrectly?. I read about Maggie’s needing room to breath, well this is a fairly large room and they ought to be working much better than they are. My main fault so far is that I haven't been very systematic about moving the speakers in small increments until I find the optimum position. I've tried them at 4' from the front wall where bass seemed no better, so I brought them out to the Cardas recommended position at 6.18 feet. I've slid them back and forth a little from that position but without any positive effect.
Are they too far apart?....when I reduce the 12 feet centre to centre to 10' it reduces the stage width, which goes against what I'm trying to achieve. It warms the tonal balance slightly, given the added centre fill energy, but it doesn't improve bass response or stage width.

Does anyone have a setup procedure that works well with planars? Is it worthwhile even bothering with fine adjustment until I have a more powerful amp in place?

The bottom line is: I'm concerned about spending big money on high powered tube amps, if what I'm hearing is basically the sonic signature of these particular speakers, and other deficiencies that cannot be overcome with my room parameters.
After all, I could ditch the 3.6 and go with a higher efficiency box speaker and keep my CJ amp, and only have to spend another $2,000, perhaps less?

I'm sure that I cannot be the first person having a largely negative experience with the 3.6, though I suspect many people try to use these in rooms that are way too small.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to a way forward that would provide me with a sound that:-

Is non-fatiguing at higher SPL's
Is realistic in its presentation of stage width and depth.
Is realistic in its imaging ability and it's placement of performers on the stage, with realistic separation between performers.
Is realistic in reproducing mid bass and lower bass frequencies, not 'earth shattering' bass, just tuneful bass that underpins the music and adds to the realism of the reproduced event.
Is perhaps slightly warmer than most SS fans would like, with a little over-emphasis of the mids (tube-like bloom that I'm used to hearing with my little CJ integrated).

My other equipment is as follows:
Audio Alchemy DDS Pro Transport
Audio Alchemy Dti Pro 32 signal enhancer/jitter remover.
Musical Fidelity Upsampling DAC set at 192khz
Also tried a Monarchy Audio 18B DAC with volume pot to drive the Mac 252 directly from the DAC.
Various cables of reasonable grade, Acoustic Zen, Flatwire Twin etc (I'm a John Dulavy supporter and believe that wire is wire is wire is....)

I apologize for this long post. However, I’m certain that many people use these posts as a reference when sourcing new equipment, improving the sound of their existing rigs, or just reading for general amusement. So the more information the better, in my opinion.
It seems I'm one of the few that (so far) isn't getting what they expected from the Magnepan speakers, but I'm open and receptive to any ideas and input that others may have.
Many thanks in advance.

Regards

Rooze
128x128rooze
sean
6,231 posts
 
Errivera: I basically agree with all of your points, but "very high efficiency speakers" aren't necessary here so much as speakers with a more effective radiation pattern. While horns are an obvious candidate for a room this size, i was thinking more along the lines of a large line array like Pipe Dreams. Line arrays don't lose as much spl into the distance as a conventional speaker will and have the potential to produce very high spl's with limited distortion due to so many drivers sharing the load. Due to using smaller drivers, transients are relatively quick with little overshoot but due to the massive amounts of air being moved by all the drivers as needed, dynamics don't suffer. I'm not saying that this is the best type of speaker design to go with so much as i'm saying that this might be a viable candidate for this specific type of installation. Sean
>
rooze's avatar
rooze OP
633 posts
 
Sean, your comment on Pipedreams and SPL's makes sense, but is there anything out there that may be more affordable, that might couple well with tubes?
I'm quite pleased overal now with the sound of the 3.6's, in this space. However, I'm thinking about converting a room above the garage into a dedicated listening room, not now but perhaps in the new year. Again it is a large room but has zero constraints regarding equipment positioning. At this point I'm just collecting approximate costs, and getting a basic shopping list together. The room itself will need about $6k before any accoustic treatment, as the walls and ceiling need to be finished. The main problem with the room is that the floor is suspended and quite 'springy', so that may be an issue ultimately effecting speaker choice.
I haven't measured the room accurately yet but on the spec sheet when we bought the place it was listed as 60X44 approx. The ceiling is unfinished and it has a low height of 8' rising the the roof apex of about 12'.
Anyway, it's a project for the new year but I just wondered what you might think as far as speakers in the $5-8k used range. I like what I've read about the Wilson Sophia's, also perhaps Avantgarde as a contrasting design. What would you add to this list?

Thanks

Rooze
unsound
7,329 posts
 
You may want to get some expert help with your new room. A springy floor over a cavernous space may be problematic.
eldartford
4,262 posts
 
Rooze...I think we really need to find out how loud is loud.

You need to do one of two things. (1) Get a sound level meter and determine how many dB we are talking about. (2) Have your hearing checked. (Don't feel bad about this. Beethoven was deaf).

I have just determined that the 3 amp tweeter fuse (one of them) in my MG1.6 blows at a SPL of 100-105 dB. This is with three speakers + three subwoofers in a room that is 24 X 30 and largely open to one side, with the Maggies driven by 350 watt amps. Music for this test was a massive choral selection, with heavy organ. Audio sonic quality was fine right up to the point where the tweeter quit. Believe me, it was LOUD. Louder than actual performance level, and louder than I would ever play music for anything other than a test.

Certainly there are speakers that will play louder than the Maggies, but why? If you play them that loud, you will need to gradually play them louder and louder as you damage your ears.
sean
6,231 posts
 
El: I agree that we need to have some type of "guidelines" regarding SPL's on this forum for general reference.

As mentioned above, you really have to measure spl's at the seated listening position with "C" weighting. Measuring SPL's in any other manner leaves too much for interpretation and differences in installations. Since not all speakers project sound in the same manner, you and i could both measure 95 dB's at 1 meter but have different SPL's at an identical yet greater distance. As such, we would have skewed perceptions of what was going on unless we compared levels as we heard them when seated. After all, 95 dB's at my seat would be equivalent to 95 dB's at your seat, regardless of the differences in the room, speaker radiation patterns or distance from those speakers.

On top of that, these readings should only be taken with the mains and any subs used when operating in two channel mode. Running a center and surrounds that contribute to the overall SPL level will only confuse those of us trying to work off of a given set of standards. If one wants to include readings taken in multi-channel mode, that is fine. Just for sake of clarity though, those readings should be identified as such. Otherwise, since this is primarily a two channel forum, we should be able to assume any readings taken were in two channel mode.

I think that something like this would take these forums a step further in the ability to communicate various ideas with less guess-work involved. After all, when Fred thinks "loud" is 95 dB's at his seat and Barney thinks that 110 dB's is "loud" at his seat, it is hard for them to communicate and understand exactly where the other guy is coming from. If I can say that i'm listening at XX dB's at my seat, you can easily duplicate that ( within a reasonable window of tolerance ) and know exactly where i'm coming from.

If we did this, i think that we would find that most people don't listen near as loud as they think they do on an average basis. While momentary peaks might climb up somewhat, average SPL's are what should be measured and compared. After all, someone using a recording with 5 dB's of dynamic range ( highly compressed rock music ) will have a FAR higher average SPL than someone using a classical recording that has 50 dB's of dynamic range. Comparing SPL's as taken on the peaks between these two installation would be quite useless. The system playing rock music might be averaging 105 dB's and peaking at 110 while the classical recording is averaging 70 dB's and peaking at 110. Both are peaking at the same SPL, but believe me, one of them is WAY louder than the other. Sean
>

PS... Most speakers hit a brick wall at a specific point and go into dynamic compression at or slightly above that point. After that point has been reached, they are very non-linear in output and their distortion characteristics take off like crazy.
More to discover