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

I found this on the FAQ section of the Magnepan website. What do you electronics experts have to say? I know that Masa(Sushi) drives his 4 ohm Hales with an Elite vsx 45 with no problem. FYI on the Pioneer site I couldn't find a 4 ohm rating for the Eliltes, just that they recommend 8-16 ohm speakers and make accomodations for 6 ohm impedance. Is it just that Magnepan's are greedier than Hales or is this a blanket admonition?

dh,

In fact, Maggies are less greedy than 4-ohm dynamic speakers, because a Maggie presents an almost purely resistive load (read, most benign load from the amp's perspective). True, Maggies are very inefficient speakers: you need a lot of power to drive them properly. But as long as the amp can tolerate a "benign" 4-ohm load, you should be fine.

Get a used Bryston 4B on Audiogon. It will drive 500+w @ 4ohms. Thats what I have. It has a 20 year warrantee so even if is somewhat defective...sent it into Bryston and they will replace all the parts as long as its within the 20 year warrantee. I have Bryston's coming out of my Rotel Surround receiver pre-outs. Thats how I plan to run my possibly future Maggies MG12. As with Maggies the more you feed power the more headroom and more resolution at louder levels. I know someone with 125w@8/300@4 ohm amp that clip at loud and strong passages on the Maggies say anything past 80db. Mind you the Maggies usually trip at 90-95db.
But Masa doesnt drive his Hales with the Elite. He uses his Adcom amp.

Here Sushi;

Your same model Adcom was clipping with the Maggies.
http://www.soundstage.com/entry04.htm
A Bryston 3B was clipping also. Another person with the same 4B as I do had much success though.
I'm considering the MMG in a couple of weeks...fiancee willing. I'd like to compare my finding with this vs my old M22 and current PMC DB1. The price sounds very appealing.

Thanks for the interesting link, Saturn. Although I don't have time to read the article right now, I am already pretty much convinced that if I ever decide to go for the Maggie 3.6Rs, I will have to replace my power amp as well.

But isnt the 3.6 going to block your hallway?
Thats somewhat the issue I have currently and in the new place. Where can I place this BIG hunk of membranes and making it disappear. I had one idea... have those long sheets of paper with that Japanese/Chinese writing and kinda make a Feng Shui looking room. Roll up those sheets of long paper when listening...drop em down over the Maggies when not listening.

Masa,

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?

Went out today and listened to these:
Magnepan MG12 http://www.magnepan.com/1-800-474-1646/mg12.html
Vandersteen 2Ce signature http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/The%20Model%202Ce%20Signature.html
Triangle Zerius http://www.triangle-fr.com/gammes-2003/zerius-202-gb.htm

Brief synopsys:

MG12 - WOW!!!! is this how music sounds when you get rid of the standard box which can color the sound. Perfect smooth blend of all frequencies. SwweeTTT vocals. The fiancees "Madonna Ray of Light" album actually sounds very very good. Pavlo acoustic guitars are lifelike. Details galour. Schostakowitch was one of the best sounding I have heard in long time. Tight bass but lacking on the really very very low frequencies ie. pipe organ music, church music needs a sub to compensate. Wide soundstage but not kinda focused. The guy just plopped them into a spot after moving some Martin Logans. Maybe not tweaked properly into position so it was hard for me to tell or pin point the location of jazz player. I would say it was kinda like there a little to the left rather than 3 feet behind 11 oclock position based on some speakers that I have listenend to. Standing up from sitting position lost the sweet spot. I think if the speakers were raised 4-8 inches and if straightened perfectly vertical rather than the somewhat leaning posture of the Maggie stands the soundstage might improve and a little more focused. Overall the experience was positive. And can you believe it .. the fiancee said she loves the look of the Maggies???? Most people say..isn't that kinda wide and gawdy? Well a good sign so far. This is the first time I took her into a listening session.

Went to the next shop. Put the same material on the vandersteen. Nice, CRYSTAL clear!!!. Details Details. Smoooth. Nice highs and tight lows. Seemingly more focus and detail. Hmmmmm...soundstage was not that deep. Maybe I was too close. Could not move my chair back since there was sofa full of other guy waiting for me to finish so that they can listen to the 4600+ Spendor speaker. And when they did jump in..I said to myself..the M80 kick the crap out of those speakers. All I heard is the thummmmppphhzzz thummmmmppppzzz. Yeah I guess those guys do like heart thumping bass that overpowers the mids and highs.
Well the Vandersteens also were only max. 1 feet from the wall. I read that there was a passive driver at the back. Unfortunately there was not enough room to pull out that 75lbs 2ce sigs. I really have to come back to redo the listening. I liked the clarity of detail on the Vanderteens. Resolution was saturated with loads of information.

Lastly are the Triangles Zerius. I have not heard much about this French speakers. I put on the same media. Then it hit my face. REALLY NICE!!!!!. What the hell is going on? Very very sweet music. And the soundstage...wide, big...and holy cow is the stage like 10-15 feet back. I have never heard a stage this big. Very nice. Very smooth and sweet. Lots of fine details. Forget Ascends or Paradigm or the other competitors against Axioms (This is just a personal opinion. I could be wrong). If there is a brand that would give Axioms a run for its money. I would say Triangles. Both Axioms and Triangles are one of the few budget line speakers that give you the best bang for the buck without sacrificing quality of sound.

Saturn

Saturn,

Thanks for passing on your thoughts on these speakers. It's nice to hear about what's available outside out little Axiom planet (universe).

Although I've never heard the Magnepan MG12s (I have heard the 1.6s) I thought it was strange when you said the sweet spot was lost when you stood up. When I heard the 1.6s, there didn't seem to be a sweet spot. They sounded great whether I was standing up, sitting down, or walking all around the room. I thought that in itself was a great selling point. Maybe there's a large difference between the two.

Have you had a chance to listen to larget Maggies?

Not to sound like a broken record, but the best "value" in the Magnepan series is the MG1.6 Qr. The MG12 are VERY nice, but the MMG are almost, if not as good as them, for half the price. The MMG are just sold factory direct...keeps the price down as we all know. If you have a chance, and you are seriously considering Magnepans, take a time to listen to the 1.6's...its worth it.

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...

Bwaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.... I want one of THOSE!

Masa, you mean that Meyerson compares favorably with the halls architect Yanagisawa designed for the National Theatre and Opera City in Tokyo?

I wonder what the resonance frequency of the organist's bench is??? I also wonder if he/she tries to avoid that note or seeks it out...

John,

I've been to the concerts at the Tokyo Opera City several times, although the hall was completed several years after we moved to Texas. The entire art-district complex in the New Capitol district of Tokyo is one of the numerous culturally-positive leftovers of Japan's bubble economy in the '80s-early '90s. Indeed, Tokyo built a number of truly magnificent facilities in the last 10 years -- all planned during the late bubble era but only after numerous delays due to economy.

And yes, the Opera City is another hall that I know has outstanding acoustics -- arguably the best in Japan. Both the Meyerson and Opera City are so good that I need a double-blind test in order to decide which is better. Personally, though, I always felt that the Opera City hall had kind of a peculiar visual atmosphere, which I wasn't sure I liked much...

Anyway, I didn't know the name of the principal architect. Hmm... Takahiko Yanagisawa was from the exact same district of Japan where my father was born and this last name is quite common. Perhaps I might be distantly related to him. HAHAHA...


For those who are curious about what we are talking about, here is a photo of the Tokyo Opera City concert hall...

I had to play my last jury on a fisk. Very nice instruments.

Masa, this brief discussion of Opera City and some folks idea of the top halls might be of interest .

My senior year at the University of Oklahoma, we had a Fisk organ (Op. 111) installed in our brand new music center, in a hall that was basically created to mimic the acoustics of a cathedral - a nice 5(ish) second decay. It's quite a sight to see all the work that goes into putting together and tuning an organ. I went to some amazing inaugural concerts for that organ, and got to sing some choral/organ works in concert, too.

Hi Sushi,

Great pictures. Even the CD recordings that I own made in Meyerson Hall sound wonderful. I think the consultants on the acoustics were Artec of NYC, who also did a wonderful recital hall in Toronto, and the Glenn Gould studio at the CBC broadcast headquarters in Toronto. It's used for live recital broadcasts.

Incidentally, if you like pipe organ recordings, there's a label out of California (Gothic) that makes some of the best organ recordings I've heard. There's a Gothic CD of the Skinner (I think) organ in Woolsey Hall, at Yale, that I use for subwoofer tests. It's called "The Transcriber's Art" (Gothic G-49054) with Thomas Murray at the console. I use cut 9, a transription of a virtuoso violin bon-bon by Fritz Kreisler. The pedal notes are awesome.

I still have an open-reel tape of the Casavant Freres (pipe organs from Quebec, very popular in Canadian churches) organ in the church (my mother was giving a violin recital accompanied by pipe organ) that I attended as a kid.