Most Transparent Speakers under $1500? (1 Viewer)

[Alex Prosak]

Paul,

You can't go wrong with the Maggies. I think they're wonderful speakers.

Just out of curiosity, what RHCP album did you audition the Thiels with? If by chance it is Californication, that is a truly awful recording and the speakers are just showing you how bad it is. I won't even listen to the album in my crappy car stereo which is too bad because I really like the songs.

Like I said before while I currently own Maggies, the Thiel 1.6s will probably be my next speaker.

Alex

 

[Luis C]

What model Maggie center did you audition? The older (now discontinued) MGCC1 or the new (and incredible!) MGCC2...
I have the latter and it is amazing!

 

[PomingF]

Paul, I said that 'cause I mentioned @ AVS how mine didn't seem to integrate too well but now that you had measured your room and decided there's just not enough for it to work ...

To me the 250 is closer to the 550 while the 200 is somewhere b/w the two floorstanders. The speed & lowend extension of the 750 is better than both the 250 & 550.

PF

 

[Paul_Scott]

Luis,
i'm pretty sure it was the newer model.
i think it was around $750(?). i can make sure tomorrow.
as far as sound quality on the Maggie center, i thought i was...hard to tell.
the first test dvd i was using was Norma Rae, and for some reason we couldn't force the center channel on this one.
this is a film from 1979, almost totally dialouge driven, with a little distortion.
i used it because it represents the median audio quality of all the discs in my collection, and is more indicative of the material i will be collecting in the future-i.e older movies w/ out snappy 5.1 tracks, and generally fair audio.
by far the best i heard it sound was with the maggies.
the sibilance to the dialouge was much less apparent, and ambient foley effects in the 2 channels were AMAZING.
a conversation takes place on a porch between the main characters, while out in the street kids are playing, cars going by etc, and it was so real!
all the background noises sounded like they should...occuring in the distance
by comparison the same scene on the rockets, with the exceptional 200 center( and every other center under $1400 i've heard) it just sounds like sound effects on the audio track, layered right behind the dialouge.

i also heard Star Wars though, and this is where the disappointment and doubt set in.
there is just no bass-none-nada.
most sounds are still crystal clear precise, but they lack the dimension and gravitas that a little bass would provide.
i'm not talking about sternum rattling low end, just the simple 'weight' to sounds.
there is superb resolution, but it has no...gravity.
it has superb spatial distance, but no weight.

maybe i'm just confusing this with the coloration from box speakers, which is all i've really heard (the last 40 times i've played these scenes).
i think that there would come a point, where i would really crave more depth to each particular sound, as opposed to depth between the sounds.
the crossover with the sub sounds like it would be a real hassle.
Sound & Vision has a review of the next step down set-up from Magneplanar, and while its a glowing review, they do mention the hassle of repeatedly calibrating the sub-especially if you listen to 5 channel music.
i think i would have room in both the budget and basement for this smaller package, but the salesman yesterday really recommended against it- again for bass concerns.
a sub would be mandatory, and at this point i really enjoy NOT using one.
still, its hard to get them out of your mind once you've heard them (at least for me).

Alex,
yeah, it was Californication.
i'm sure it is really poorly mixed/mastered, but it sounded just fine on everything but the Thiels.
even the maggies did a good job with it.
at this point, considering the demo material i cited above, i don't want a system that is merciless to poor quality material. it just wouldn't serve me well in whole.

i have a standing order in for the 750s to be shipped when i get back from work in a couple weeks.
i'm a little concerned they may be too quick for my taste, which is why i was inquiring about the 550s.
it would be hard to tell for sure until they got broken in, and from what i hear that will probably take a while for me.
i just know from looking at all the speakers these last few weeks, that the top of the line, isn't always the one i prefer.
if the 250s were a little more 'full bodied' w/ music, i'd be perfectly happy with these.
i already went to the trouble and expense of building stands,
and like i said, they make an absolutely perfect front end for HT with that center.

 

[Luis C]

Paul,

Easy way to tell which center model it was:
Was it flat or curved? The new MGCC2 is curved... the MGCC1 was replaced because of the very "issues" you mentioned.

As for the "weight" in the sounds... there is some part of me that agrees with you... in some instances I too have felt that way, but I can't tell even after all this time if its really there or if its just my memory of less "real" sounding speaker systems. For me, realism is the key to whether some audio component is good or not. And the Maggies excel in this...

I have a pair of SVS 20-39CS+ woofs mated to my system for use in video applications. It has been as perfect a match as I have been able to find and in audioapplications they don't affect the incredible musicality of the MG 3.6R's.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Luis,
i honestly can't remember for certain if it was curved or not.
i seem to rememeber it as being just long (very long) and rectangular, but i didn't really give it a good looking over.
if there is in fact an improved model, that's going to throw a little monkey wrench into my plans.

even stepping up to the 750 Rocket would be taking me outside my budget, but i just can't deny the impact the Maggies had on me.
But that center was just such a weak link.

i'm definitely going to have to investigate this further (just when i thought i was all done).

the rockets are a great system. after hearing all the highly respected brands available to me, i have no problem endorsing them as the tremendous value they've been billed as by the early fans and old Diva-ites( i don't have enough background to declare them Best Value Ever, but at this point i wouldn't be surprised).

The maggies just exist in a whole 'nother realm.
the problem with the maggies is that beyond the cost of the speakers themselves, i would have to budget much more for the amp system, and a sub purchase would now be mandatory.

on the other hand, i want to do this right the first time, so i don't look back 3 months from now.

i may just have to go back friday (or even today) and give them another going over, and maybe see about getting them in the home for a demo.
the MGMC 1 is definitely within the budget, although like i said the guy tried to talk me out of that one.

 

[Paul_Scott]

just found out it was the old MGCC1 center i was listening to...(groan)

i also talked to a Magnepan CSR and she advised against the MGMC's in my situation, however the MMGs i can try for 60 days money back, and if i kept, just trade up.

this is all starting to give me a headache.


almost akin to the concept of going with a HTPC to drive my pj.
i know , theoretically, it will give the best picture, but the picture w/ my dvd player is already very good to excellent, and it has been so far hassle free, and less expensive, when you factor everything in.
i wouldn't sacrifice ease of use for a ~% increase in quality, when what i already have is quite good.
as much as i liked them, they are just so many issues w/ placement, power, sub integration (and the need for a sub period).

 

[Greg_R]

Paul, since you liked the imaging of the Thiels you may also enjoy other time/phase coherent designs like Vandersteen, Dunlavy, & Meadowlark. Unfortunately these speakers are extremely revealing & highlight problems (inc. bad recordings).

Enjoy the auditioning...

 

[Alex F.]

Paul:

Many audiophiles (myself included) prefer the imaging without a center-channel speaker whenever only 1-2 people are viewing a film or listening to multichannel music.

We activate the center channel only when my wife and I have guests over for a movie. The center speaker anchors the dialogue to the screen for those sitting outside the sweet spot. At all other times we switch the preamp to phantom mode.

For two people sitting well between the main front speakers we find the overall imaging and soundstaging more coherent without the center unit.

You may come to the same conclusion. If so, your requirements for a center speaker may be lessened somewhat if it is used only occasionally.

Just another item to add to your headache...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I might add that (and this is not to slight any speaker or opinion since audio is such a subjective hobby) that speakers that rely on reflected and out of phase sound to create that air (like the Maggies, Mirage and Def tech) are NOT going to give you an accurate sound stage....Adding additional "reflected sound" from your listening environment to the sonic mix is the farthest away you can get from the original recording. You want to eliminate as much of that "sonic illumination" from your ears as you possibly can. It only obfuscates the signal into pleasing sonic hash.

You're right about the way that bipole speakers work. However, Maggies (and other dipoles) do not use "reflected sound" to alter the presentation. Actually, it's prudent to use sound-absorbing material on the front wall (behind the speakers) so that you don't get reflections from this rear-wave.

What the dipole nature does is create sound "nulls" to the left and right side of the speaker where the waves cancel each other out...this is the whole idea of having that sound coming out of the front/back of the speaker 180 out of phase. This greatly minimizes the reflections from the side-walls and ceiling. The worst reflection artifacts in audio are generally that first side-wall reflection...and true dipole designs virtually eliminate it.

So dipoles are actually attempting to MINIMIZE room reflections...beyond those generated by conventional drivers! Bipole designs, as you note, try to use reflections to beef up the sound...and I agree with you about this practice.

-dave

 

[John A. Casler]

Many audiophiles (myself included) prefer the imaging without a center-channel speaker whenever only 1-2 people are viewing a film or listening to multichannel music.

Speak for yourself Paul (just joking) but can we really ever use the words "audiophile" and Home Theater in a meaningfull sentence?
IMO an audiophile would not be wearing his "audiophile" hat when watching or "screening" a film since there is no audio reality to enjoy except reproduction of the "engineered" foley and overdubbed voices to "reproduce the "Theater reality". (Not reality, reality)
Additionally the recording engineers intent was to spread the recording out over 5.1 discreet channels so to try and backwards engineer it into 4.1 might be the opposite of what a true audiophile might be interested in (my opinion)
A 5.1 home movie soundtrack is, by design, produced with specific sound localization and speaker performance parameters. To try to turn it into a "stereo" event is not what the technology was set up for.
Too David:
I understand the acoustics behind the "out of phase" dipolar speakers, but this causes a very "finicky" speaker. I should know a I've had several pairs. Very few owners ever set up the room treatment needed to "absorb" this sonic illumination and in the average room it cannot be eliminated. (they are great in front of Heavy double drapes)
So the only alternative is setting the speakers several feet out from the wall and listening in "nearfield".
Again, most do not do this. Instead they sit back and enjoy the "huge" soundscape painted by the "reflected" signal and the direct signal combined. I have been there and done that as well as had blankets and rugs and wallhangings galore, hanging about the room (they too sometimes several feet out from the wall) to block, impeded and absorb the sonic hash.
If you visit the Maggie website, you will see no reference to placing sound deadening materials on the front wall of the listening area. In fact, on a quick visit, I didn't see any reference to proper set up at all.
While I agree this makes them sound the best (but they have even less dynamics and output this way) I bet few owners really do this.
Their popularity is due to the fact that they are pleasing to listen to. If you took a poll and ask how many Maggie owners have a sonically dampened front wall with speakers sitting 5 feet into the room, 5-6 feet from the side walls, and sitting 5-6 feet away, I don't think you would get too many.
Most will have them 3-4 feet out 7 feet apart and they sit 7-9 feet away. That is listening to sonic reflection.
I love them. If you use the nearfield listening position, and eliminate the mentioned sonic illumination, the sonic reality they offer is spectacular but lacks realistic dynamics at concert hall listening levels.
Just an opinion.
John

 

[Matt Jesty]

Let's all keep it close to the reality of the equipment he'll be running these speakers with...many of these brands ARE NOT SUITED to mid-fi rcvrs.....

 

[Paul Clarke]

John C,

I believe John R was expressing an opinion about YOUR BOSE comment within YOUR post and this lending itself to the reader ignoring the jist of YOUR post. Which would be a shame really as you had some interesting things to say, especially now that you've explained the BOSE connection to the premise you were making.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Good points John. Just wanted to make sure that no one got the idea that dipole speakers were *supposed* to rely on "reflected" sound.

 

[Alex F.]

John:

There is no contradiction in putting together the terms "audiophile" and "home theater." I am an audiophile and I want the best possible sound reproduced from mono, stereo, and multichannel music sources; and mono, stereo, and multichannel film soundtracks, too.

Being an audiophile does not confine one to stereo only. Remember, audiophiles came about during the days of mono recordings.

Come to think about it, the word "audiophile" includes the general term "audio." It does not specify how many channels or the source. I suppose the correct term otherwise would be "music-only-two-channel-phile." It's a bit unwieldy and probably won't catch on.

Film includes dialogue, background sound, foley effects, and music. I want to maximize the sound quality of all of it. Is that not part of what an audiophile strives to do? This audiophile always wears his "audiophile hat," as you call it, when evaluating reproduced sonics no matter what the source. As do my audiophile friends and acquaintances.

Happy listening!

 

[Larry B]

DaVid:

You're right about the way that bipole speakers work. However, Maggies (and other dipoles) do not use "reflected sound" to alter the presentation......
So dipoles are actually attempting to MINIMIZE room reflections...beyond those generated by conventional drivers! Bipole designs, as you note, try to use reflections
to beef up the sound...and I agree with you about this practice.

Excellent description. I hope that everyone reads it twice, so that the message sinks in!

Larry

 

[Larry B]

John:

but can we really ever use the words "audiophile" and Home Theater in a meaningfull sentence?

AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.

Larry

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'm a bonifide cable-swapping/transport changing/speaker tweaking audiophile. I know what good LP and analog sound like and I know what tight clean bass is, what imaging is and what a holographic soundstage from a good 2-channel system is like.

I also love HT. And I love the incredible sound on some movie sountracks. Interestingly, it's often the oddest films that have the most amazing fidelity. Sense and Sensibility is astounding in the scene where the one daughter is playing the piano and singing while the Colonel walks into the room. You hear a live "presence" and can hear the natural acoustic decay of the piano and her voice as it reverberates in the room of the performance. It's "live miced" and you hear all that acoutstic-reflection information and the 5.1 soundtrack brings it to your living room. If you have a hi-fidelity system, you will be amazed.

Also, I have heard many DTS soundtracks on films in my living room and I must say that almost always the midrange resolution and pin-point imaging leave conventional 16/44.1 red-book CD in the dust. DTS sounds very analog to my ears...it gives you that micro detail you get from LP.

And how can anyone watch Amadeus and not get chills when the voice student is suddenly transposed from the acoustic space of the music lesson to the stage of the opera where her voice projects out into the room like a rush of wind.

Yes...HT and audiophilia are *not* mutually exclusive terms.

-dave

 

[Luis C]

Well put Dave!
I think the majority of people just haven't heard an "audiophile" level HT system and thus believe that you can only get "so" good... but boy can you get good!
Another excellent example of micro-detail but not related to music is the jungle scenes in Predator, where with a high resolution system you can here the waterdrops falling from the jungle canopy and the various insects in all the channels... absolutely amazing. These are the real reasons to get a really good surround setup for the home!

 

[JohnBrianW.]

How about Axiom's M80's? I was blown away with how accurate they were.