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
rooze

Showing 7 responses by sean

Rooze: Sorry if i came across as "dogging" you. Quite honestly, i take for granted that some info should be "common knowledge" when it really isn't. Couple that with a lack of info due to differing ideas as to what is "loud", what is "bass deficient", etc... due to not having any points of reference ( spl measurements, frequency response curves, etc) and we could run around in circles forever. Until we know exactly what you want, how far you are willing to go to achieve those results and what type of results you are currently observing will only have us making general observations about your installation. You are presenting a situation that is out of the ordinary. As such, many of the suggestions that might otherwise be excellent may not be applicable to your situation.

Having said that, it had appeared that you had put forth some effort to address many of the concerns, but the changes mentioned almost seemed to ignore some of those trying to offer first hand insight as to what makes these speakers in that type of installation "sing". Part of this could be from lack of specifics in the suggestions being made and / or your lack of experience with various makes / models on the market. My guess is that it was probably a combo of both. I guess in some situations, one almost has to be specific about makes / models that should work and makes / models that should be avoided. As a general rule though, we end up having "fights" about what is "good" and what is "bad" in situations like that, hence the generalizations that many of us make trying to point people in the "right direction" without being TOO specific. I probably stepped on ( more like STOMPED on ) more than a few toes with my comments about SS Mac amps above, but it seemed like "generic observations" weren't doing us much good here.

Top this off with the speaker placement that you ended up with in this new post, which was far from optimal and possibly even worse, and it appeared that many of the recommendations being provided were being "dissed" i.e. thrown to the side due to lack of respect for the points of view being expressed. Hence my "spelling it out" point by point, which probably came across as hostile. In all actuallity, i was simply trying to explain things in the most informative yet "cut & dried" approach possible. Being to the point and coming across as being a "gruff bastard" are sometimes easily confused. That said, i probably am "gruff bastard" all too often.

If you can provide us with some type of spl references and ballpark frequency response curves, we might be able to better help. Between the size of your room, your speakers radiation pattern / impedance / lack of sensitivity and not knowing what speaker positioning is acceptable in your room, we are all working blindly. I think that most of us took for granted that with a room that size, you could put your speakers wherever they worked best with little concern for traffic patterns.

Here's a method that i've used to set up all different types of speakers in all different types of rooms. If it helps your or someone else, that's great. Other than that, i'll shut up now. Sean
>
----------------------------------------------------------

The "quick & dirty" method of speaker positioning, regardless of room size or shape:

This method takes into account the variables encountered in a normal installation in a room that is not acoustically optimized or make use of dimensions that are considered desirable by most audiophiles. Since most of us have our systems in shared living spaces, some restraint must be placed on how things are set up. This approach tries to take those factors into account and at the same time, help you to achieve the best performance that you can with those operating constraints. This assumes that the primary listening position will be centered between the right and left speakers. Obviously, you have to have some idea of where you want to place the speakers in your room i.e. which side of the room, etc... before you can start.

With that in mind, the dispersion characteristics of the speaker and room placement should have been taken into account prior to purchase and set-up. Far too many people buy speakers that are not suitable for the intended listening environment and then wonder why their results are not what they expected. Some careful planning and common sense can go a long way here. Bigger is not always better and vice-versa.

Select a recording with a solo female vocalist accompanied by minimal music. With the system in mono and the speakers firing straight ahead ( flat faced with no toe in ), spread the speakers out as far as possible while keeping the singer's voice centered. When you can start to hear the left speaker independently of the right i.e. the female singer is no longer centered but sounds slightly diffuse, bring the speakers back in just a bit. If you've done this correctly, the speakers should be spread as far apart as is possible while still retaining a rock solid center image.

Using a recording that has relatively even tonal balance with good bass extension, move your speakers back and forth until you find good tonal balance i.e. the right amount of bass reinforcement / cancellation for your individual room and seated listening position. By back and forth, i'm speaking in regards to their position to the wall behind them and your seated listening position. You're still in mono mode here. You are looking for the most even frequency response i.e. no specific bass notes stick out nor do others seem to be missing.

Switch the system back into Stereo mode. For this portion, you'll need a recording that offers both a broad soundstage and solid imaging. Adjust the angle of the speakers ( flat-faced, toed-in, etc... ) until you have both solid imaging and a wide soundstage. In most cases, you'll end up having to compromise between how wide the soundstage is and how "etched" the image is. One should also bare in mind that tonal balance is affected here with more toe-in generating an apparent increase in high frequency output.

Once you've got all this done, go back to the first step and start over again. You may end up having to move the speakers a bit in any given direction. Since any one placement change will alter the performance of several aspects of the presentation, it's possible that further refining will have you doing this several times. While repeating this procedure, don't forget to switch back to mono for the first two steps and then stereo for the third portion.

The first run will get you 90% of the way there in a reasonable amount of time. From there, it's all a matter of finesse and how picky you want to be. Since every installation is different, especially with various furniture, speaker radiation patterns, room dimensions and listening positions, this works better than any formula i've ever found. In effect, this helps you to work with your individual room and speakers rather than trying to make your specific room and speakers work with a "generic" formula based on optimal conditions.

This approach is based on using one's ears as the only tools available. The end result will give you sound that you find enjoyable within the confines of that room. It is quite possible that the end results may be far from "flat" or "tonally neutral" though. Obviously, what one hears and likes will have great effect on the outcome here. Tuning the system for flatter response using test recordings and an spl meter may provide very different results than what one ends up with using the above approach. In most cases, one can obtain excellent results by combining the two types of system set-up ( listening / personal preference and testing with calibrated test equipment ) with minimal cash outlay.

By the way, DON'T make the same mistakes that most people do. Slightly uneven spacing from side walls on each speaker is okay. Many people try to space the speakers the same distance from the sidewalls, but this just reinforces specific nodes. Staggering the nodes for each speaker slightly helps present a more even tonal balance with less pronounced peaks and dips. Investing in a reasonably priced yet "accurate" spl meter and a recording containing calibrated test tones is well worth the money in my experience.

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.
Pbb: I've always tried to combine "science" and "instinct" when working with audio. The problem here is that science doesn't know how to explain everything, so we are left to fall back on instinct in many cases. In doing so, i think that we are better off most of the time as science can be rather in-exact. Various ideas and theories come up every day, but until they can get all the pieces of the puzzle together, we only have partial understanding of any given puzzle. Even with all of the pieces of the puzzle supposedly in place, we should still trust what our God-given senses tell us. Science should only help us to understand and better explain what our senses have already told us. That is, if we are alert to those senses to begin with. Sean
>
El: are you trying to pass off that opinion as fact or is that fact your opinion ? Either way, you're wrong and i can prove it : ) Sean
>
El: I was being a smart ass. I agree'd with what you were saying, hence the "smiley". No smiley here as i'm being serious in this response. Sean
>
A) You've got the wrong speakers. Maggies WILL NOT play "loud" if we are speaking the same language. By the way, SPL's should be measured at the seated listening position on an average basis.

B) You don't have a suitable amp(s) for your situation, nor do i think it is possible to obtain one. If you do, you will blow your speakers to smithereens.

You need high rail voltages and high current capacity. Solid state Mac amps are big SS boat anchors that try to emulate tube sound. That is great if you are more concerned with a specific sound than with obtaining high levels of accuracy and the best in electrical performance. Mac's do this by throwing away the technical superiority of their SS heritage and high current potential by introducing the non-linear distortions of an output transformer into the system. An output transformer is equivalent to raising the output impedance of an ss design ( soggy, less controlled bass ) and running a VERY long run of small gauge speaker wire ( higher series resistance, placing a veil on the entire audible spectrum ). In my opinion, such a design is not suitable for use when trying to obtain either accuracy or musicality in a system. Running an output transformer with tubes is another story ( although it sounds better without them ) due to being a bird of a different feather.

C) You are sitting WAY too far back from these speakers. For most speakers to produce "wide" soundstages, you need to sit appr 2' - 3' in from how far you have them spread apart. That is, if you have them spaced 12' apart, you'll probably have to sit somewhere between 11' - 9' from their center. Obviously, this will vary with the amount of toe in used.

D) Your speaker placement and listening positions are all wrong. Look at all of the commonly divisible numbers in the equation here. I will pretty much guarantee that you are creating a lot of your own problems here. Here's what you posted:

"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."

3' from the rear wall
6' from the front wall
9' to one side wall
12' apart
18' from the listening chair
27' to the other side wall

E) The first thing that you need to do is to get the tonal balance right. Music without bass will always sound "weak & anemic". This is true even if the mid-band spl's are the same or slightly higher than if you actually had some bottom end "grunt". Once you obtain a more balanced frequency response, THEN worry about the volume requirements. The reason that i say this is that once you get some bass into the picture, your perspective on volume will change a little bit.

F) These speakers will never deliver "slam" or great bass impact. Their bass will be tight and well controlled, but you'll never get "thump" out of them. Due to the surface area, they will produce quite reasonable bass when properly set up.

G) John Dunlavy is a very smart man and i have oodles of respect for him. Having said that, many people misinterpret what he said. What he did say is that various wires will measure differently and that they could affect performance but that most people can't detect the differences that they could contribute under controlled conditions.

All i will add to that is:

1) their "controlled conditions" may not have been ideally optimized for the tests being performed

2) the candidates selected for such tests did not have the proper listening skills. As i've stated before, most people here but don't know how to listen.

3) the cables being used were all of similar electrical characteristics and / or not different enough to warrant audible differences under the specific test installation conditions

H) I can provide a means to obtain better, "more optimum" speaker placement for any given room, but it seems as if all of the previous comments have gone unheeded. Most speaker placement formulas fail in rooms that are not relativey square or rectangular in shape. Even then, they don't work all that great due to the various surfaces, points of reflection and room furnishings involved. If you are truly interested in working to minimize your problems, please let us know.

I) Given that most of us have contributed very similar answers and you've gotten the same results with everything that you've tried by ignoring those comments, the general consensus is that the system is trying to tell you something, we are trying to tell you something, but you aren't listening. I don't think that any of us have a problem with multiple posts about the same problem so long as we aren't talking to a brick wall.

Good sound reproduction is a science. You can stumble across good sound by trying a million different things or you can apply logic to the situation and speed the process up drastically. Sean
>



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
>