2. speakers
  3. 1247086675

Passive sub for Magnepan 3.6r?

Intrigued by the fanatical praise for the Magnepan line, my buddies and I finally got the chance to audition same at length. The 1.6s were fairly engaging, though a bit bright to my ears, and wholly lacking in low end slam--overall there's a number of conventional dynamic speakers I'd choose for the same $$. The 3.6rs, however, truly are as awesome as their cult proclaims--they reproduce drums and vocals as well as anything I've heard and are incredibly transparent. We did an A/B comparison of the Maggies to comparably or higher-prices B&W Nautilus and Thiel floorstanders, and it was absolutely no contest--next to the Maggies, the others sounded veiled and boomy.
All that said, and with due respect to those that enjoy the 3.6rs w/o a sub, we all felt that the 3.6rs lacked bottom end impact and were, in effect, 80% of a great speaker. We then added a REL sub (as is often recommended), but still struggled with the integration--no matter how we adjusted the sub, the combo still sounded like two separate speakers, not an integrated whole.
So my question is, assuming I take the plunge, would the Maggies be better served by pairing with a passive sub? My concept, as yet untested, is that by using the same amp to power both the sub and the Maggies, I might get a less distorted, more seamless sound. While I'm sure this topic has been addressed somewhere, your informed opinions would be most appreciated.
loomisjohnson
macdadtexas
1,794 posts
 
first of all welcome to the Maggie fan club.

If the 1.6's didn't compare to other speakers in their price range, I would like to know what amps where used? I have never heard any speaker under $2k that can touch the 1.6qr's, but you need a lot of power, such as Innersound (sorry now SandersSound) Bel Canto's or high current Parasound's.

Same for the 3.6r's which I have had forever. They have a tremendous amount of slam, if you have the right amps (and as above correctly mentions, the right room set up). I have learned after many different amps that that you need to start with a low of 600w (into 4ohms) and go up from there. I find about 1000w to be right.

I do have a sub again now (Rel B1) and it really does fill in the bottom well, but after much time and effort to place it correctly and dial in the crossover, I have it set at 39 to just take over the very low notes, and the SLAM is well, SLAMMIN.

Good luck, if you get them concentrate on the amp(s) first them think of a sub. I would start with:

Cary CAD 500 MB (my favorites)

Parasound JC-1's

Bryston 14b SST (or 7b sst's, same thing)

Sanders Sound ESL amps (all great, or the older Innersound)

there are more, but get crazy expensive, and I haven't tried many of those with the exceptions of the high powered Pass amps, which are great.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Duke,

At 30,000 feet, I'd agree with every word you said. However...

IME, dipole bass doesn't look just like 2 monopoles. True, the deep suckouts are dramatically reduced as they would be with a pair of monopole bass generators, but smaller suckouts occur more frequently with dipoles. It's a different (maybe more benign) problem, but a problem, noetheless.

As to EQ, your point re: "the sweet spot" is probably more relevant in theory than in practice. If EQ'd on-axis response is good, you needn't sit with your head in a vice. For most high end listening rooms, my guess is that EQ is extremely effective. It's certainly been the case for me.

OTOH, if a given system is in the "party" room, there may be more teeth in your argument.

Marty

Marty
loomisjohnson OP
1,905 posts
 
thanks for the feedback. i auditioned the maggies in optimal conditions--acoustically treated room, speakers seemingly well placed at least five feet from the wall, driven by a big old boulder amp (certainly more than 500w + @4ohms)-- so i don't think the set up or associated gear was the issue. we also crossed over the REL at 40 (consistent with what macdadtexas does), but all of us still heard the disconnect. i'm sure audiokinesis's analysis of the room interaction is correct--he seems very knowledgeable--but i still wonder whether using one amp (rather than an amp to drive the maggies and the sub's amp)might be a more cost-effective solution; hence my initial question about using a passive sub.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
To integrate a sub you have to play around with location a bit. I heard a pair
of JL 212s with a pair of Maggie 20.1s and the integration was seamless. it
was put together by Seattle's best high end shop, who definitely knows what
they're doing.

I would think that a really good sub candidate for Maggie would be the
Martin-Logan powered subs. Since they're made to integrate with
electrostatics, they are very fast and light, and fill that 40-100 Hz area very
well. One of the ways subs have trouble supplementing panel speakers is that
many of them are relatively slow. The JL and Martin-Logan are lightning-fast,
however.

Also, Maggie makes a separate woofer. Not quite a sub, but it supplements
the bottom end and makes sure it's flat to 40 Hz. They are passive, made to
blend with decor, and are reportedly fairly inexpensive. They are easier to
blend because, being panels, they're as fast as panels, and they have a
frequency response up to 7KHz.

The Magnepan passive woofers are made of a smaller version of the bass
panel of a 20.1.
loomisjohnson OP
1,905 posts
 
good thoughts, johnnyb--i've generally assumed that subs aren't so placement critical nad didn't really think of the spped of the panels relative to the sub (esp. since everyone claims how musical the REL is). i'll hunt around to see how users like the maggie/ml sub combo or passive woofer.
again, many thanks.
More to discover