Another 2,000 Speaker Question


First off, let me say that I am not an audiophile, but a music lover (which means I need help!). I would like to start building my system by replacing the (mostly junk) I have currently with a quality system. Unfortunately, I am also not near a good high end dealer. The listening room is rectangular, but the speakers would fire across, not down, the room. I listen to blues, rock, acoustic music, some jazz, but little classical. I recently read a review in Stereophile regarding the Magnepan 3.6 speakers; while those are out of my price range, I often see the 3.5's used for about 2,000 or so. What are your thoughts regarding the 3.5's vs. the 1.6 Magnepans? I currently have a McIntosh amp, which will eventually have to be replaced (sooner rather than later if I go with the Maggies due to their power requirements) Does anyone have any thoughts regarding non-electrostatics in this price range, such as the PSB GOlds or Paradigm 100's? Also, have you had success with used components and their value vs. brand new product lines? Any help is appreciated.
undertaker4
Thanks, rcprince! I am confused about ss vs. tubes, frankly. What do you feel like you gain vs. give up with tubes? Are they difficult to maintain? It does sound like tubes may be the way to go, maybe matched with some Reynauds maybe (several have suggested these, and other reviews on the net seem glowing -- no pun intended). I am also interested in the speakers you're listening to as a match with your tube equipment.
Despite horror stories from some, tubes are not at all difficult to maintain in most cases. Just remember that electronics until the late 60's were all tube. And much more of the transmitting equipment at radio/tv stations than people realize is STILL that old equipment. Some solid state people will tell you that there is some type of magic to being able to operate tube equipment. Believe me, there is not. My father has a piece of tube equipment down at our shore house that has used the same tubes since he bought it(never even touches it). And that was AT LEAST 27 years ago. Yes, you will have to learn to bias your tube power amp. But, you will only do that once in a while, or when you replace output tubes. And if you can turn a screwdriver(literally), you can bias many a tube amp. Tube amps will drive a reasonably efficient pair of speakers in your room wonderfully. Just remember that pre-WWII, VERY low watt tube amps provided the sound for places like movie theaters, etc. What tubes do well is the midrange(most instruments and the human voice). To many of us out here, it becomes incredibly more real and alive than with a solid state amp. Now, you will not usually be able to run with ss in the deep bass or far treble, but depending upon your speakers, there is a good chance you may not even care about it. And by the way, my feeling is that you get the speakers first, and worry about amplification somewhere down the road. You have a nice list here. Coincident, Dunlavy, Reynaud, Soliloquy, and Triangle. You may also want to look at Vandersteen. Although they didn't match up with your initial list, you never know...
Trelja's post is, as usual, on the mark. I'm not the world's most technical guy, but I've had no trouble dealing with my Audio Research and now Jadis tubed equipment since I was weaned from solid state about 12-13 years ago. There is obviously more maintenance involved, as you eventually do have to replace tubes, and you may have to adjust bias (although some tube equipment is self-biasing). The sonic trade-offs with solid state are pretty much as Trelja states; there are also a lot of threads on this topic you could take a look at here, as you will see it is a never-ending debate. To me, tubes just do a better job of conveying the soul of the music, rather than the technical strengths and weaknesses of the recording itself. As far as what speakers I use, that wouldn't help you much, as I have a four-piece system which is not yet, to its designer's chagrin, commercially available, where I use tubed amps for the satellites above 200 hz and solid state amps for below 200hz (I listen to a lot of full scale orchestral and organ music, so I need the last octave of bass). I'd still prefer a tubed amp for below 200hz, but finding one that will handle 20 to 40hz is difficult and expensive. Trelja's also correct in that you should probably focus on the speakers now, just keeping in mind the possibility of tubes for the future. Too many choices at once can lead to audiophilia nervosa, or something like that!
a good compromise re: tubes vs solid-state, both for sonics, mainytenance, & ability to drive difficult speakers, would be to go w/a tubed preamp & a solid-state amp. many (myself included) are wery happy w/this arrangement.

re: speakers, i'd tink that maggies wood be wery difficult to properly place in your room, especially along the long wall. they need a *lot* of space behind them, & to the sides... others have mentioned dunlavy's as doing well along a long wall of a room - this is true, & dunlavy's are excellent-sounding speakers, imho, but thew have a *very* small sweet-spot, even when set-up perfectly.

if ya like the e-stat sound of the maggies, i'd inwestigate newform research's r645 (as many a-gon regulars know, and are prolly sick of hearing, i'm saving up for these!). they go for $2265 delivered, ya have a 30-day in-home trial, & if ya don't like 'em, yure only out return-shipping. also, at 91db/1w/1m, they're sensitive enuff to be used w/toobs, tho the owner/designer recommends solid-state digital amps. i currently own speakers that retailed for $3800, but, based upon owner comments on audioreview, i wanna czech these out. a few happy owners have also posted their comments here. the ancillary equipment used, and speakers compared, are really quite impressive...

good luck, doug

In the 2k range the Martin Logan SL 3 is a great transparent speaker- they are originally 3500 but sell for 2 and under on the used market.