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
Timwat,

You've got a lot of information here to sort through.

I agree with 1953 on the virtues of Apogees. I've owned Stages for eight years now.

Sean makes good suggestions regarding a subwoofer. I'd recommend a small, fast sub, also. I used a Velodyne ULD-15 for years (crossover reset to 60 Hz) and finally sold it recently in favor of Mini-Grand style dual 8" subs to better match the speed of the ribbons.

As far as amplification goes, I've found that planars can't be given enough current. I've upgraded amplification twice in the past eight years: from 120W to 200W and then back to 160W. The last upgrade was key: from Rotel to Threshold.

While I don't have any experience with the new Martin-Logans, I chose the Stage over both the Sequel and Aerius (original) because the ML sounded veiled by comparison.

My $0.02, FWIW, YMMV (and any other internet acronyms I can think of).
Tim,

The first thing one must ask themselves when getting a music system is: How much to budget?

Personally, I prescribe to the notion that you build an audio system backwards. Start with the speaker you love, followed by an amp to go with the speaker, followed by a preamp to go with the amp, etc. ect...

I have been an owner of Maggie 3.6's since they came out. I have compared them directly to the 1.6's many times back to back. The 1.6 is the best bang for the buck in planer speakers that I know of; however, I am not familiar with the above mentioned speakers. The 3.6's were the best speaker I could afford at my time of purchase, and they are one of the greatest speakers in their price range.

However, they do reveal EVERYTHING. I have heard them driven by a little ARC CA50 tube 45wpc integrated amp... They sounded pretty good considering the low power of the tube integrated amp. I have heard them driven by: ARC gear, Plinius gear, Monarchy gear, Acurus gear, Aragon gear, Cary gear, Sim Audio gear, Pass gear, Bryston gear... And a half decent listener can hear the differences (some very dramatic) between all of the equipment with the 3.6's.

The Maggies love power. They may make you power mad. If you get Maggies, I would avoid using an integrated amp. You can, but the moment you try out a decent hi powered amp/preamp combo in your sysytem, you will wonder what you have been listening to the past with the integrated amp.

I would advise either Bryston, Sim Audio, or Plinius solid state amps for driving Maggies. If you want tubes the VT100 mk2 or mk3 is a wonderful amp for Maggies. If you are curious as to what I have in my system, see my system listed in the virtual systems here at Audiogon.

Subs can work well with Maggies. Depending on your room and your upstream components, a sub can do amazing things to a system with Maggies. However for the best results, I would choose a REL subwoofer. I have auditioned several different subs with maggies, and REL works best for me. They are not cheap, but neither are most things is this pricey hobby. If your room is small, and you have good enough upstream electronics, the Maggies can be pretty flat down to 35hz. You may not need a sub if your room cannot support frequencies under 35hz.

But it all comes down to budget, and how much upgrading you want to do in the future. If you want to do upgrading, splurge and buy the 3.6's, and make amplification your next upgrade. If you want to settle now, get the 1.6's and a great used amp (this total will run about the price of new 3.6's). This will give you a very balanced amp/speaker part of your system that could keep you happy amplification and speakerwise for a long time. But it all boils down to money.

If you want to enter the Holy Grail quest of audio, there are plenty of future options for upgrade. If not, buy a system within a budget that is balanced, and enjoy your music. (It also helps to not listen to any hi-end system that is remotely better than your own as well ;) )

Good Luck!

Keith
Tim,
My system now consists of the SCD777ES source, ELAD pre to 2 Sunfire amps in biwire mono config to the 1.6qrs with an ACI titan II sub. ICs are the Jon Risch DIY Beldens and speaker cables are bi-wired analysis plus oval 9. I am currently deciding on room treatments.
Thanks you for all your responses. I am a little overwhelmed that so much helpful and useable advise came so quickly; I was anticipating a fair share of "you must do what I've done or you're not a serious audiophile" kind of posts, but didn't get any of those, and I am grateful.

You guys are absolutely right, I need to sit down with the spreadsheet and bank statement and figure out how far I want to go right out of the chutes, and how much I want to go with this in the future as well. A little tough, since I have so much tied up in keyboards and other music gear, LOL.

The best thing is after 14 years of marriage, my sweet wife has developed "musician's ear", and picked the 3.6's hands down vs. the ML's and others we auditioned together. So that's half the battle.

Again, thank you to all who responded for sharing your wisdom...this is exactly what I was hoping for.
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