Magnepan MMG... for HT
|
New member Username: ElevenPost Number: 5 Registered: Nov-06 | Anyone using the MMGs for home theater? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4561 Registered: Dec-04 | GC, if MMG's do well for HT, the amplifier had best be quite stout of heart. |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3656 Registered: Feb-05 | So too must the sub or subs. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 18 Registered: Nov-06 | But if the amp and sub are good, can MMGs work for HT, with decent surround imaging? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4595 Registered: Dec-04 | GC, I am gonna call for some help here, but if if you are gonna MMG's for Ht, you need a very very quick receiver here. H/K need not apply. My best guess would be Denon 3906/2807 receiver. Renowned for theatrical performance, a seperate amplifier for solid mains speakers might be advised, should you like to have a stereo. A real trade-off. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4596 Registered: Dec-04 | 3806, darn fingers. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4597 Registered: Dec-04 | Or outlaw 970 with 220 amplifiers. 5 of them. Hey, you asked about the MMG's... |
|
Gold Member Username: PetergalbraithRimouski, Quebec Canada Post Number: 1969 Registered: Feb-04 | What makes a receiver quick Nuck? I've never heard that before. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 21 Registered: Nov-06 | Nuck, I'm not laughing... I actually at one point considered using 7 Outlaw Monoblocks... :-) |
|
Bronze Member Username: BlastermanPost Number: 22 Registered: Mar-05 | >>if you are gonna MMG's for Ht, you need a very very quick receiver here<< Does that mean the flux capacitor is tuned a special way or something? What's the formula for "quick" when it comes to measuring the speed on an amplifier may I ask? The price of your exotic cables / OHMs? About a year ago I demo'd a pair of MMG's with several brands of AV Receivers ranging from my $220 Panasonic XR 55 to my (now sold) 200wpc B&K separates along with a Pioneer Elite and Denon, both in the $700 range - I forget the model numbers because they weren't mine and brought over by friends curious about the maggies and my XR 55. By far an away my $220 XR55 *dusted* the more expensive but conventionally amplified A/V boxes - that advantage going to the Panny because it uses an entirely digital amplifier stage. The high power demands of the Maggies simply showed the achilles heel of the non digital AV/boxes while the Panny, even though rated lower in watts has much better specs on paper under high load. Funny thing is I'm not the only audio enthusiast to conclude this. And what about the Maggies? Great speakers...if you like sitting in one specific spot and aren't into music or HT material that's very dynamic. Magnepans have 'god-like' detail and transient response by virtue of their large radiating area, but they have lousy dynamic characteristics. This means no 'thump' or boom, which is fine for some types of music, but will leave an Action Flick enthusiast looking for alternatives. If you like detail in your audio playback, be it HT or music, the maggies beat all other comers hands down, unles you can afford a pair of vary large ribbons. At the least though get a good sub because you'll need it with HT, and seriously look at the new digital amplifier based AV Receivers for driving the fussy maggies. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1516 Registered: May-05 | Sam, Before calling others out on what I'm assuming you believe is ignorance, you need to check yourself for a minute - "...that advantage going to the Panny because it uses an entirely digital amplifier stage." Explain this one to me. Are you implying that the amplification stage of these units are using 1's and 0's? There is nothing "digital" about them. They are analog, just like the units you're bashing. The difference is in the internal power switching. For more technical explanations, do a little research. Also, many people here (myself included) have reported problems with the particular unit you own when pairing it up with complex load speakers. It struggled with my PSB Image T55's. My 50 watt 'analog' NAD 320BEE did a far better job driving them than the XR55 did. Those speakers present a far easier load than anything made by Magnepan. Even Edster, who was the biggest Panasonic digital receiver advocate here, believed that the unit had problems with complex speakers. Maggies require a lot of power at very low impedences. The XR55 simply doesn't deliver enough power to make them sound the way they were meant to sound. I'm not saying all Class D (aka digital) amplifiers are bad. On the contrary, there are some phenominal Class D amps out there. Take a look at companies like Halcro and Edge to see the potential. IMO, the XR55 is not a good example of Class D. |
|
Bronze Member Username: CcdoggyPost Number: 79 Registered: Jul-06 | FYI Class D does NOT mean digital. It defines the way the amplified signal is produced using mofsets. D happens to be more efficient then A or A/B amps but some say a bit of sound quality is lost when going with D vs an A/B amp. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1523 Registered: May-05 | Which is what I was trying to say. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 4615 Registered: Dec-04 | Sam, my mispost. A quick receiver is a hoax. Quick amplification would be my intent. Quick comes from fast transients, square frequency waveforms(no slopes) and an appropriate damping factor. If you are familiar with 'attack' and 'decay' you already know. No receivers with MMG's, please. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 29 Registered: Nov-06 | Okay then... how about Adcom GFA-7807 or B&K Reference 200.7... Anyone try either of these with the MMG's in a 5.1 or 7.1 array? Are they "quick"? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 3675 Registered: Feb-05 | The Panny has the potential to sound good with the Maggies in that the Maggies require alot of power but they are not a difficult load. They are a stable 4 ohm load with virtually no back emf. I do have to take issue with the statement; "If you like detail in your audio playback, be it HT or music, the maggies beat all other comers hands down" Having been a Maggie owner the first thing I notived was the lack of detail. Detail ain't their forte. They excel in giving you that "there in the room" feeling that you get with an intimate experince with live music. Wonderful though that is it isn't the same as detailed...I'm not stating which is preferable but that those two are not the same and really aren't related. "but they have lousy dynamic characteristics" Perhaps but there is no speaker that I'm aware of or in my experince that comes close to equaling a Maggies speed. And speed makes for a damn good movie expereince. With the right (translate fast) subwoofer or pair of subs and good bass management I think that Maggies may be better movie speakers than music speakers. I once heard Maggies at an Audio store driven by a top model Marantz (yes Marantz) receiver and with a couple of cheap Paradigm subs and it sounded very good for movies, so I can imagine how it would have sounded with more appropriately matched gear. Well, enough of my rambling for now........... |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1465 Registered: Jun-05 | Yeah,I agree with that Art. |
|
Gold Member Username: Stu_pittIrvington, New York USA Post Number: 1526 Registered: May-05 | "The Panny has the potential to sound good with the Maggies in that the Maggies require alot of power but they are not a difficult load. They are a stable 4 ohm load with virtually no back emf." I was under the impression that they were difficult to drive. Thanks for clarifying that Art. |
|
Bronze Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 13 Registered: Nov-06 | Stu... I use a 50 watt rotel amp with my maggies and love the sound. I listen to R&B, Jazz, Smooth Jazz, crossover classical (josh groban and sarah brightman stuff) instrumental pop (james taylor) and other music like that. Basically the only kind of music I dont listen to is metal, and for my collection, 50 watts is plenty. There is a thread here somewhere with some of my playlist. I would suggest more though for HT. IMHO, the 200 watt mono amp from outlaw would do wonderfully |
|
Silver Member Username: CheapskatePost Number: 544 Registered: Mar-04 | i actually bought MY panasonic reciever specifically to mate with the fussy MMGs i lusted after that few entry level recievers could handle. i was blown away by the total speed and clarity (if not pinpoint imaging) that the larger MG 12s were capable of and wanted to switch to planars instead of treble polite NHT superzero acoustic suspension minimonitors (which still kick much higher priced gear like B&W in the butt for speed and imaging except in the treble) i was blown away by how much better the panny walked all over both my onkyo AND NAD recievers in every way or at least matched them. panasonic class D recievers are super fast and detailed yet extremely relaxed too. revealing doesn't necessarily have to be ruthless. my panasonic reciever FINALLY raised my NHTs to such a high level that i no longer felt the need to acquire the MMGs that it was supposed to be a stepping stone towards. it's a really great combo (from what i've read) and is surely the most bang for the buck you can find. i know that a brand new panny is slightly lively in the treble but eases up with break in (but the midrange is awesome immediately) and that planars can be a bit harsh in the treble too until they break in. it's not the ideal system out of the box, but once evverything is broken in, you can embarras much costlier gear. to my ears, $1,200 maggies walk all over $10k B&Ws in every area except imaging, bass EXTENSION (NOT SPEED AND DETAIL) and treble extension. otherwise, maggies really get out of the way QUICKLY. compared to my panny, my 4 ohm capable NAD reciever sounds very slow in the treble and can't get a nice image going to save it's life but it MIGHT have deeper bass. otherwise, the panny can do speed and detail from top to bottom you'd have to hear to appreciate. i liked my onkyo better than the NAD for treble detail and imaging, but the panny IMMEDIATELY gave me goosebumps for it's higher detail levels and ESPECIALLY for the midrange that made vocals jump out of my speakers much better than i thought they were capable of. i never did get the MMGs. the panny fixed the weak treble i got ESPECIALLY from the NAD, but also from the slightly harsh onkyo too and it out imaged both of them big time to boot. NEITHER unit could EVER get as wide as the panny which was just as specific in the center. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 42 Registered: Nov-06 | Thanks for everyone's input thus far... A related question... Is anyone using any other Magnepan combinations for home theater or multichannel music? MMGs up front, MMG-C center, MMG-W rears? MC1 or MG12 up front with MMG or MMG-W surrounds? Other combinations of the lower/mid-level models from Magnepan? Or Magnepan fronts with other-brand surrounds? Thanks in advance for your thoughts... |
|
New member Username: DigitalPost Number: 3 Registered: Nov-04 | Come on fellows... you've been reading too many copies of Stereophile... I have (many times) run my Magneplanar 1.6QRs off a puny Pioneer VSX-1014TX receiver with no problems whatsoever. The morel 'GC' is, "Go ahead", hook up whatever you wish to the Maggies that you have, the only side-effect you'll discover is a breathtaking soundstage and some of the best A/V you've ever experienced! Do run a sub, Maggies, while jaw-dropping at pretty much everything else, need bass support! Andrew D. www.cdnav.com |
|
Silver Member Username: Arande2400dB could probably d..., 4000 isnt ev... 100,000dB FU... Post Number: 414 Registered: Dec-06 | Welcome to Ecoustics Andrew! |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 51 Registered: Nov-06 | Now THAT's enthusiastic praise, Andrew D! Thanks for inspiring my confidence... :-) I think I'll soon be auditioning some MMGs... |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5049 Registered: Dec-04 | Hi Andrew. The 1.6QR's aint the same animal as the MMG's. And while your units may work well, some high voltage amps will make the MMG's shine, GC. I have never heard a ribbon, planar or electrostatic speaker that didn't love power. Well OK the ESL64, but I have not heard them. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 157 Registered: Nov-06 | how is everything going? what did you decide to do? |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 55 Registered: Nov-06 | Still comparing... I've got 4 MMGs and an MMG-C in a 5.1 configuration, comparing with a 7.1 Ascend system with CMT-340s across the front and CBM-170 side and rear surrounds, comparing with Aperion Audio 633-T fronts, 634-VAC ctr, 534-SS dipole/bipole side surrounds, and 532-LR rear surrounds, with the Aperion S-12 subwoofer versus HSU VTF3-MK3 subwoofer. So far, the MMGs have beautiful airy highs, but weak lower-midrange... I'll post further details when I'm done... |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 164 Registered: Nov-06 | I myself compared my MMG to the ascend CBM 170 and.... sent the CBM 170 back. To me they sounded listless and flat. The maggies won all the way around. The bass, mids, and highs were by far better. But, I will tell you this. The problem with the midrange is that receiver you are using IMHO :-) |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 56 Registered: Nov-06 | Yeah, I should have known the Outlaw 990 with a B&K amp would be weak...  |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 169 Registered: Nov-06 | HAHAHAHAHA my bad :-P that's what I get for not reading the entire thread. I thought you had a Panny. some people DO think that they have a slight "smiley face" frequency response curve, like the bass and highs are there, but there is a slight dip in the midrange. Now I am going to really have to listen for it :-) something tells me I don't want to hear it. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 57 Registered: Nov-06 | Or maybe it's me and the intermittent tinnitus in my right ear... Seriously, though, the MMG's have a really beautiful light airy effortless quality, but I felt as though there was some loss in transition from deep bass from the subwoofer into the bass and lower midrange frequencies from the MMGs. Subtle, though... maybe I'm imagining it. BTW, way-off topic, as I'm typing this, I'm watching some phenomenal underwater reef footage on Discovery HD, with the sound off, listening to the gentle flowing chords of 'Till Sunday by Blind Man's Sun... just beautiful! |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 173 Registered: Nov-06 | Maggies are VERY picky about what you are using for a sub. are you crossing them over to the sub or running them full range? |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5631 Registered: Dec-04 | I can't imagine not running the Maggies full range, unless the lower range is straining, what low range there is. I would imagine the sub placement and speed would have to augment the speakers. That comes back to Art's assessment of the ML Dynamo. A lot of other ML likers too. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 342 Registered: Apr-06 | I think I probably would cross the Maggies over, simply because most speakers start producing *a lot* of distortion in the lower octaves. Let the Maggies produce what they are good at, and let the sub produce what it is good at, and all will be good and right in the world. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5635 Registered: Dec-04 | SM, how do you figgur the Maggies are 'most speakers'? Their freq range rolls off about 85Hz, and rolls off within one octave, which is rather kurt. The sub shoud roll in about 70, plus an octave or so, blending OK on paper. Or on screen, as it were. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 343 Registered: Apr-06 | They aren't conventional loudspeakers, but even Maggies have to deal with THD (and while I don't have measurements specific for the MMG, every speaker I've seen under $1000 a pair has significant THD by the time it hits 50Hz). Also, the MMG is good down to 40-50Hz or so. Also of note, it doesn't have that steep of a rolloff either, so it will be responding (albeit at ~15dB lower) even at 20Hz or so. If were running a movie at relatively high volumes, that is going to put a lot of strain on the Maggies. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 179 Registered: Nov-06 | I use mine specifically for music, and run them full range at moderate SPL. I never crank them up so to speak, and the performance is fantastic, albeit a little lightweight. However, they have never sounded thin. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 180 Registered: Nov-06 | bass is good to probably 45'Hz in room, so I tend to agree with SM on that. They might sound a little light in that area but they have never sounded like they have a midrange suckout. But, I wouldn't want to jack up the volume too much without a stiff amp behind them. Perhaps because they DO respond so low is the reason why Maggies are noted for needing an amp with a lot of grip and control. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5644 Registered: Dec-04 | I must have failed MMG 101 freq response. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 60 Registered: Nov-06 | Um, to answer the question, I have them crossed over at 60hz.... it was either that or 40hz, which is too low to my ears for the Maggies. I should try full-range plus sub, just for kicks. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 183 Registered: Nov-06 | I don't think my MMG's are particularly strong in the bass, but they aren't terribly weak either. They will easily best a minimonitor in that reguard. I feel that, when set up properly, bass that is slightly deeper than my atoms, and a heck of a lot tighter and smoother. I did an A/B comparison just for giggles. Yes, you read that correctly, I did an A/B of my atoms and my MMG's. I obviously knew my MMG's were the better all around speaker, but I was curious about the bass response. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 61 Registered: Nov-06 | Speaking of measurements, has anyone seen a frequency response curve for the MMGs? I have hunted for one online, but no dice. |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 184 Registered: Nov-06 | Nuck this is the first time Ive thought about the MMG running to 20Hz, although rolled off. Now I'm thinking, and that isn't good. Usually something happens when I start thinking, and it has one of two outcomes. 1.) uhm... what's that smell? 2.) great!!! it worked! |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 185 Registered: Nov-06 | My maggies are my babies, so I'm not going to mess with them. Also, my amp isn't powerful enough for me to turn the volume up. I don't want to fry my amp, or melt the mylar in my speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: StefanomVienna, VA United States Post Number: 350 Registered: Apr-06 | I wouldn't worry about killing them if you haven't already. It is just that a good subwoofer will put out more output at 20 or 50Hz than the MMGs and more importantly with lower distortion. So why force the MMGs to work and produce distortion at all? |
|
Silver Member Username: GavdawgPost Number: 187 Registered: Nov-06 | GC, some maggie users will recommend running them full range. I run mine full range ONLY because I use them strictly for music, and at a moderate level. I have to agree with SM on this one :-) The MMG's are not big enough to produce strong bass without distortion. Now the larger maggies... tight, deep, accurate, tuneful... pick your positive adjective for bass :-) but even they have detractors that say that they lack "slam" |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5655 Registered: Dec-04 | Now 'slam' I can dig. Never heard it from panels. Lots of other good stuff, though. |
|
Bronze Member Username: ElevenPittsburgh, PA USA Post Number: 64 Registered: Nov-06 | Yeah, not a lot of slam in the MMGs. In an ideal world, I'd be able to keep and switch between all 3 sets of speakers... the MMGs for light jazz, vocals, classical... Ascends for harder jazz, fusion, funk, "world" music, well-recorded rock, pop, big band, comedy HT, drama HT, LOTR, Star Wars, etc... and the Aperions for metal, muddled rock recordings, brainless action movies, and their good looks. By the way, the SACD of Steely Dan's Gaucho is incredible. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 5720 Registered: Dec-04 | GC, you may, just may be a speaker wh@re. Good for you! |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics