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

Showing 2 responses by sunnyjim

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
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