Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions AV receivers driving 4 ohm speakers - Manepan webs

False. You have heard the MG12s. The third time we went to the shop, he had them playing. We didn't actually listen to them very closely, but I still found them to be quite impressive.

I agree with Peter on the 1.6s. Everything about them (save bass extension, which still wasn't bad) was amazing. If you have a chance to listen to them again, listen to a Rush drum solo (Peter can tell you which one.) The drums just dance all over the room, up and down, back and forth. They're just... amazing.

Peter: That is my intention next time to see if I can get a little more focus on the sound at least for the MG12. Marcus does make an excellent point that the lower MMG is only $500 and very close sounding to the MG12. But I have heard the MG12 does handle more power and work better with HT. The MMG can only get so loud and at higher levels you can hear a membrane sound for really low bass. I don't wanna hear that in a loud explosion.
The MG12 is tilted slightly back as with the the MMG. I am going to have the guy prop it up straight like the 1.6QR. Also I pay more more attention and get the guy move the speakers around the room until I am satisfied. Might as well make him work for his money.
I will get him to try to prop it up also by 4-8 inches. I have gathered some info on some optimal setting by other Maggie owners.

I wish that I have a chance to check them out with a HT setup but I doubt thats going to happen. I would like to know if it will blend seemlessly with my center channel and the QS8 in the rear. As of the present I still think the QS8 can't be bested by any brand at any price. The quad pole design is a definite winner with wide dispersion and high detail.

I've powered a pair of Maggie 2.7QR's with different but not overpowering amps - a Carver TFM-15CB and a Musical Fidelity X-AS100. They sounded wonderfully clear and transparent with these amps, though to pump the bass a bit, I've switched to a heartier amp, the NAD S200. Paired with a Bryston BP-20 pre-amp, the NAD gives the Maggies added heft and bottom; but I obtained much of the Maggies' crystal clear imaging and clarity with the weaker machines too. In short, my experience with these guys is that their reputation as power eaters is overstated. Of course, as always, much depends on your music preferences, desired volume, listening room conditions, etc.

In reply to:

---

If you get the 3.6Rs, will you be driving them to such high levels and/or is your room so big that you will need more than 200 W/ch?

---

Mike,

Yeah, the problem is that our living room alone is over 5000 cu. ft. -- plus it has two large openings to the two-story foyer/formal and to the kitchen/breakfast areas, a total volume of well over 10000 cu. ft. Also, I like to listen at the "realistic" volume -- when I play the late-romantic/20th-century orchestral pieces, it is fairly loud.

Realistic can mean a great many different things. In the seats I was able to afford at Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco when I was a student, the sound wasn't that loud, and was pretty diffuse come to think of it.

Wowzers!, that is a big room.
It was hard to tell, from your photos, just how big the room really is.

Hi,

If memory serves, Davies Hall in San Francisco was a virtual clone of Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, both (acoustically) designed by the same acoustician, whom I interviewed years ago.

Roy Thomson was an acoustical failure, very disappointing, in part because it contradicted many of the rules of good hall design. They pushed out the sides of the hall so it was pie-shaped (a slice, that is) so no lateral reflections, hence no sense of hall reverberation. The acoustician mounted all these stupid transparent discs above the orchestra to try and compensate, but it didn't work, because it's lateral reflections from the sides of the hall that tell our ear/brain that we're in a big, concert-hall space, not vertical reflections. He should have known better, but I think the architect and orchestra board made it impossible for him.

I think Davies Hall also had those discs above the orchestra, did it not? By the way, Thomson Hall has since gone through a total gutting but I've not heard it. Bad idea. They should just tear it down and start again.

The loudest peak levels I ever measured in Thomson were from about the fifth row orchestra--103 to 105 dB on a work for chorus and orchestra. Two sets of percussion. Mahler?

The sound in Thomson was lousy. Dry, no bass resonance, and little reverb. The old hall it replaced (Massey Hall) was excellent for audience members, not good for musicians.

In reply to:

---

The loudest peak levels I ever measured in Thomson were from about the fifth row orchestra--103 to 105 dB on a work for chorus and orchestra. Two sets of percussion. Mahler?

---

Although I've never been to either of those halls, that number alone tells a lot. In the Meyerson Symphony Hall of Dallas (which, incidentally, has one of the best concert-hall acoustics that I've ever experienced in the US, Europe, and Japan), the peak SPL readily reaches 115dB and beyond, at the front section of the orchestral floor or on the choral terrace. The organ pedal tones that you "feel" on the choral terrace seat is almost scary, too. (and yes, I've brought in my RS meter to the concerts. hahaha...)


A wide-angle shot of the Meyerson Hall

Oh wow.... That looks so cool... Nice organ!

Yup, an awesome organ that we Dallasites are all proud of! -- it is the Fisk Opus 100. Look at the immense size of it...