A question of value in today's hi-end.

[Bruce B]

Hi Bruce,

I recall your mentioning that somwhere...which ATC's had you heard

I heard the SCM150 ASL in a surround config. the the SCM20 SL in surround. The sound was too bright, edgy and fatiguing.

I also had the Adams in my Post room in a surround config. Couldn't get rid of them fast enough. I'm totally satisfied with the Focals.

 

[c1ferrari]

I heard the SCM150 ASL in a surround config. the the SCM20 SL in surround. The sound was too bright, edgy and fatiguing.

I also had the Adams in my Post room in a surround config. Couldn't get rid of them fast enough. I'm totally satisfied with the Focals.

I thought you had some custom loudspeakers when Mike brought me over...I hope I can hear your room, again, with the Focals

 

[Lee]

I'm about to pull the trigger on some Maggie 1.7s. I maybe could stretch and get the 3.7s but honestly I have other priorities in terms of maintaining my house and keeping my wife happy.

I currently have 1.6s and love them and will likely keep them. I'm curious to hear what Maggie has done with better parts and an all ribbon panel. What I have heard has impressed me so far. And my VT-100 amp is about to get an upgrade with KT-120 tubes from Audio Research.

I love going to shows and listening to mega-buck systems but often I notice far more modest systems can sound better.

In this hobby, room acoustics (and although Ethan and I disagree on many things, he is dead on here) and synergy among components can be 70-80% of the battle. Good masterings and original recordings arguably another 10%.

I think many in the hobby are dismissive of lower priced gear (I'm guilty too as I often hate to read posts where people say hirez adds no value only to find out they are using a $200 Denon player) but I've just heard too many modestly priced but great sounding systems over the years to be a snob anymore.

I just love it all. Cheap headphone based systems to $500K Wilson Maxx3 installments. It's all good.

 

[Lee]

P.S. Steve Guttenberg just posted a pic of the new "desktop" Maggies. I cannot wait.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

P.S. Steve Guttenberg just posted a pic of the new "desktop" Maggies. I cannot wait.

Link?

 

[mep]

I'm about to pull the trigger on some Maggie 1.7s. I maybe could stretch and get the 3.7s but honestly I have other priorities in terms of maintaining my house and keeping my wife happy.

I currently have 1.6s and love them and will likely keep them. I'm curious to hear what Maggie has done with better parts and an all ribbon panel. What I have heard has impressed me so far. And my VT-100 amp is about to get an upgrade with KT-120 tubes from Audio Research.

Can you really make Maggies sing with a tube amp? Aren't Maggies current hungry beasts that need a good SS amp to make them really open up and sing?

 

[FrantzM]

Can you really make Maggies sing with a tube amp? Aren't Maggies current hungry beasts that need a good SS amp to make them really open up and sing?

Maggies can be wonderful with tubes. I do however find 100 Watts to be borderline small for such an inefficient speaker. Quickly add that I am a huge Maggie fan, have owned several models: Tympani 1, IV, SMG, MG 3, MG 3.5 and MG 20.1 ... They all required good amount of power... I would have suggested more power. The best would be to audition his Maggies in his listening room with a more powerful amp at leat 200 watts but the higher the better... all things being equal.
Lee, however has heard his Maggies with the VT 100 so they may be enough for his purposes.

 

[Lee]

Link?

I will ask Steve. He posted it on his facebook page.

Can you really make Maggies sing with a tube amp? Aren't Maggies current hungry beasts that need a good SS amp to make them really open up and sing?

Absolutely which is why my VT-100 sounds amazing with 1.6s. Of course, the VT-100 is very conservatively rated. I think I will hear even more out of the amp with the KT120 tubes I am adding.

 

[JackD201]

My experience with my SMGcs and 1.6QRs of yore was that at some point maggies just don't get louder, they just start to compress. I ran my 1.6QRs with three generations of ML amps, 23.5, 332, 431. Pumping more juice never got me anywhere in the SPL department. This leads me to believe that despite the inefficiency numbers, like Frantz said, within their operating range where the panels don't flail and flap against the tensioned areas, Maggies actually don't require all that much juice. I do think 100 to 150 wpc is plenty.

 

[mep]

My experience with my SMGcs and 1.6QRs of yore was that at some point maggies just don't get louder, they just start to compress. I ran my 1.6QRs with three generations of ML amps, 23.5, 332, 431. Pumping more juice never got me anywhere in the SPL department. This leads me to believe that despite the inefficiency numbers, like Frantz said, within their operating range where the panels don't flail and flap against the tensioned areas, Maggies actually don't require all that much juice. I do think 100 to 150 wpc is plenty.

Jack-Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we are talking about 2 different things here. I understand your point that with Maggies; there is a limit to their SPL output. At some point, you will hit a wall and the sound won't get any louder regardless of the amount of power you are feeding it.

What I'm talking about is the amount of power/current it takes to get you to that limit. It was my understanding that SS will get you there more easily than tubes because tubes don't output much current.

 

[mep]

Of course, the VT-100 is very conservatively rated.

How so?

 

[JackD201]

Jack-Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we are talking about 2 different things here. I understand your point that with Maggies; there is a limit to their SPL output. At some point, you will hit a wall and the sound won't get any louder regardless of the amount of power you are feeding it.

What I'm talking about is the amount of power/current it takes to get you to that limit. It was my understanding that SS will get you there more easily than tubes because tubes don't output much current.

I really have no idea Mark. The 1.6s compressed before the amps got anywhere near clipping. Jadis runs his 2.7s with 100wpc of tube power and it plays plenty loud. He doesn't go nuts with LPs like Dafos or Round Up though. This voltage vs current thing has always confused me. I hope someone can give me a simple explanation. I'm still confused why one watt is different from another watt.

 

[mep]

I really have no idea Mark. The 1.6s compressed before the amps got anywhere near clipping. Jadis runs his 2.7s with 100wpc of tube power and it plays plenty loud. He doesn't go nuts with LPs like Dafos or Round Up though. This voltage vs current thing has always confused me. I hope someone can give me a simple explanation. I'm still confused why one watt is different from another watt.

Well, the formula is simple enough: P=IxE. However, SS amps are capable of delivering far more current to a speaker load than tubes can ever hope to deliver. A typical tube amp might be able to deliver around 10 amps of current where a SS design can deliver 60 amps. I thought that Maggies had the reputation of being current hungry speakers and are best mated to SS in order to make them open up and sing. I noticed that the common denominator with all of the Maggies that you owned was that you used SS amps to power them.

 

[JackD201]

Yes I did. I've owned only two pairs of tube power amps, my VK-150s and ML1.1s, and these came after the Maggies. I should bring the VK-150s out of their crates one of these days.

 

[Lee]

How so?

They put out more than 100 watts of power.

 

[Lee]

Well, the formula is simple enough: P=IxE. However, SS amps are capable of delivering far more current to a speaker load than tubes can ever hope to deliver. A typical tube amp might be able to deliver around 10 amps of current where a SS design can deliver 60 amps. I thought that Maggies had the reputation of being current hungry speakers and are best mated to SS in order to make them open up and sing. I noticed that the common denominator with all of the Maggies that you owned was that you used SS amps to power them.

In my experience with Maggies, SS will provide better bass and tubes better midrange. In my world, mids are more important than bass. Overall I like tubes.

 

[mep]

I owned a VT-100 MKII. How much more power do they put out over the 100 watts they claim to? Remember, to change the output level by 3dB, it takes twice the amount of power. If the amp puts out 110 or 120 watts, it's really inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

 

[microstrip]

I'm still confused why one watt is different from another watt.

You are not alone. The power rating is of great importance and should be taken as an indicator, but in practice some watts sound louder than others.

Dynamic behavior of amplifiers is much more complicated than just P=VI and the speakers can also be very complex to model.

 

[NorthStar]

=> One watt with one speaker is one hundred watts with another one!

 

[fas42]

The ability to double power as you halve speaker impedance is usually a positive sign, the Krell mantra in other words. A lot of power supplies start to gasp fairly quickly once you drop to 4 ohm impedance, specs of typical Japanese receivers give the game away here, always stating figures at 8 ohms, the 4 ohm figure is usually a fairly miserable improvement on that. Which is why high efficiency 8 ohm Klipsch speakers will do an impressive job with these beasts ...

The amount of real oomph you get from a system is always determined by the speaker efficiency, the nature of its impedance and the quality of the amp's power supply. Get these right and you'll have dynamics to burn ...

Frank