Need some wisdom comparing planars


I appreciated Sean's essay in the recent "what is your opinion" thread re: electrostats vs. horns.

As a studio musician and classically trained pianist, I have recently been bitten by the planar bug after hearing Magnepan 3.6's through VTL monoblocks at my very patient local dealer. But biting the bullet to purchase 3.6's (and required upstream horsepower to appreciate them) may be out of my financial league.

Any thoughts re: the smaller 1.6QR's (which I have not yet heard), and similar tier products from other planar manufacturers (Martin Logan, Apogee, Final, etc.)? I heard a pair of Martin Logans (sorry, didn't get model number) but I was unimpressed, seemed notably darker and muted compared to the 3.6's.

I'm also curious what people are using upstream with satisfaction...are tubes that much more preferred? Can one use an integrated SS like the Krell KAV300iL with good results? How much power is really required to get musical results?

FYI, my eclectic tastes run the gamut from jazz (Bill Evans to Pat Metheny to Jane Monheit to Duke Ellington) to rock (Dream Theater to Metallica to Eric Johnson to ELP) to classical (Bach, et. al.) to avant garde (Wendy Carlos to Robert Fripp to Varese to King Crimson)

I realise even the larger 3.6's have liabilities with the harder edged, bass-rich genre's, but the immediacy, slap, soundstage and presentation of acoustic instruments has me hooked.

Thanks in advance for any responses.
timwat
Tim,
My system now consists of the SCD777ES source, ELAD pre to 2 Sunfire amps in biwire mono config to the 1.6qrs with an ACI titan II sub. ICs are the Jon Risch DIY Beldens and speaker cables are bi-wired analysis plus oval 9. I am currently deciding on room treatments.
Thanks you for all your responses. I am a little overwhelmed that so much helpful and useable advise came so quickly; I was anticipating a fair share of "you must do what I've done or you're not a serious audiophile" kind of posts, but didn't get any of those, and I am grateful.

You guys are absolutely right, I need to sit down with the spreadsheet and bank statement and figure out how far I want to go right out of the chutes, and how much I want to go with this in the future as well. A little tough, since I have so much tied up in keyboards and other music gear, LOL.

The best thing is after 14 years of marriage, my sweet wife has developed "musician's ear", and picked the 3.6's hands down vs. the ML's and others we auditioned together. So that's half the battle.

Again, thank you to all who responded for sharing your wisdom...this is exactly what I was hoping for.
Tim, I don't want to rain on your parade about Maggie 3.6's, (especially since you passed the WAF factor) but my experience was somewhat different. First, let me say, they were better than the Logan's Ascent. Actually,I really began to like them to the point of buying them, until i heard some big band music; then, they began to sound more like the older Maggies I have heard. In particular, the upper-mids sounded somewhat stiff and congested. The bass, the best i have heard from a Maggie speaker was impressive but still sounded restricted and not as tuneful as some box speaker i have listene to. So, I put my credit card away and went home. Who knows, maybe like what others have suggested, that the Maggies need carefully matched upstream electronics, and that was not the perfect set-up I heard. A week later, I auditioned the Audio Physic Virgos(new improved model to supposedly hit the market soon) and was in audio heaven. A totally Boxless box of neutral and beautiful music. Not perfect, yet, as others have said, a speaker that forces you to continue to listen, especially the nuances of timbre it is able to uncover. Did i reach for the plastic?? No, because, they were(at the time too expensive, $5600) and I still had not sold my other speakers. Since then, I have made the mistake of trying to find something better if not within the AP line, then something else, as a result I am "circling the field" so to speak trying to make a decision on something. So, maybe, you should give the AP's a listen,, or just buy the Maggies and be done with it.!! Good Luck, , Sunnyjim
Sunnyjim:

Maybe this is the same thing you're saying...I too find the Magnepans are not "just like hearing live music", as most advertisements (including that 30 minute infomercial that Herbie Hancock does for Bose) proclaim. Don't get me started on old Herbie selling his soul for Harold Bose...it's like I've always said about the Eagles and Doobie Brothers reunions...the reason they get back together is because in the U.S., a mortgage is a 30 year loan. I personally prefer that explanation for Herbie, rather than any of the other alternatives (i.e., he really believes that Bose clock radio sounds like a Steinway).

Anyway, my point is that I gladly embrace the truth that the reproduction of recorded music will NEVER be a suitable substitute for live music. Having devoted most of my adult life to the pursuit of musical artistic growth, I sure hope not. Every attempt to electronically reproduce a recorded acoustic event, will, by definition fall short of duplication in a variety of aspects.

That being said, what I'm looking for is a subjective listening experience that communicates music in a way that floats my boat. I don't necessarily buy the argument that the most analytical, precise system is going to a priori be the highest and best pursuit.

I haven't yet heard the Audio Physics, but based upon your suggestion will try to find a dealer to audition them before spending all this hard-earned cash on Maggies (and requisite upstream electronics). I'd love to hear a set of boxes that don't sound like boxes, at least in the manner that Maggies don't sound like boxes.

But admittedly, what I'm skeptical about is the ability for dynamic drivers to offer the approximation of the e-stat acoustic instrument presentation, especially in terms of air, size and "spread" (for lack of a better term).

The search continues.
Tim, Let me just add a few points that I may have overlooked in my first post. I am always cautious of offering advise on the "Gon" because i don't have the technical knowledge of some members. Nevertheless, you mentioned something about finding in a speaker that which is subjectively satisfying to you as opposed to the analytical and super-speced transducer. I think this makes a lot of sense, and all to often we forget how important emotive intuitions are to the enjoyment of music. Selecting a speaker can be a crap shoot, because what you hear in an audio store never gives you the complete picture of what a product is capable, that is, its potential to satisfy over the long haul, and more importantly continue to reveal new meaning or perceptions about the music.To my recollection, the Maggie 3.6 did not do this for me . As I mentioned before, the first time I heard AP's Virgos, they moved out of the way of the music, and provided both a wide and deep soundstage, and new and subtle nuances to CD's I knew well. Without question, they tend toward the analytical, but it is a softer texture. Though,if you audition them, you may want to be wary of their lightweight presentation(which some owners and reviewers have noted, but have accepted in lieu of their other sonic virtues)The Maggies have more weight and possibly slam than the Virgos, but not equivalent to many of the better and highly respected box speakers. Again, I think, a great speaker forces you to listen and holds your attention. I currently own a pair of B&W Matrix 3's; they were one step down from the original flagships of the line 802's 803's.They are very accurate in the midrange, have good high end extension, and when I used the Monster reference hose of 10years ago, had much more slam than they do now using MIT Term 2. Nevertheless, they have been both enjoyable and servicable. So, why do I want to replace them??? Because,I need to know more about the music I listen to than they are capable of providing even with the upgrading I have done. I always judged them as good to very speakers, but never great speakers.I am looking for something more coherent and less boxy that creates a deep and wide soundstage. Early out in my audio experience, I never valued soundstaging and imaging as much as I do now. Then,that is in the late 70's and 80's a speaker for me had possess to razor sharp accuracy and I was content. It was like having the most accurate stop watch. I think this last point may also be a characteristic of the early audio years when I was getting involved in this field first as a hobbyist and then as professional salesmen.... Based on some of the observations you made about the 3.6's (and what others have said here) I may have to give the Maggies another listen. BestRegards, Sunnyjim