I currently have a pair of Vandersteen 1Bs and have decided it's time
to take a step up. Because I like the Vandersteen sound, I'm seriously
considering the 3A Signatures. Based on what I've read, though, I also
think I should demo models from Pro-Ac, Paradigm, Martin Logan, and
Monitor Audio that are in the Vandersteen price range.. Any thoughts
on any of these compared to the Vandersteens? Are there others I
should audition? I'm using a Plinius Mk I integrated amp, play mostly
classical music, and will have the speakers on the shorter wall of a
room that is 15' x 26'. Thanks for all comments and suggestions.

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.

"Don" wrote in message
...
I currently have a pair of Vandersteen 1Bs and have decided it's time
to take a step up. Because I like the Vandersteen sound, I'm seriously
considering the 3A Signatures. Based on what I've read, though, I also
think I should demo models from Pro-Ac, Paradigm, Martin Logan, and
Monitor Audio that are in the Vandersteen price range.. Any thoughts
on any of these compared to the Vandersteens? Are there others I
should audition? I'm using a Plinius Mk I integrated amp, play mostly
classical music, and will have the speakers on the shorter wall of a
room that is 15' x 26'. Thanks for all comments and suggestions.

I remember when I bought the 1Bs MANY years ago that it was a tossup
between them and some Maggies. The Vandies won out, but not by much.
Good suggestion, and I'll add them to the list.

it was a On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 06:41:30 GMT, "Jack Dotson"
wrote:

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.

"Don" wrote in message
...
I currently have a pair of Vandersteen 1Bs and have decided it's time
to take a step up. Because I like the Vandersteen sound, I'm seriously
considering the 3A Signatures. Based on what I've read, though, I also
think I should demo models from Pro-Ac, Paradigm, Martin Logan, and
Monitor Audio that are in the Vandersteen price range.. Any thoughts
on any of these compared to the Vandersteens? Are there others I
should audition? I'm using a Plinius Mk I integrated amp, play mostly
classical music, and will have the speakers on the shorter wall of a
room that is 15' x 26'. Thanks for all comments and suggestions.

"Jack Dotson" wrote in message news:uqS5c.28639$_w.523829@attbi_s53...
Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.

If you want that sound, use magis. Triamp with electronic x over. Grab a
subwoof that can run in mono, or use two. 3 stereo power amps. I would like
you to add to this a pair of 31 band 1/3 octive cut only EQ's. The electronic
crossover should have digital delay on each output so you can correct phase
error in low, mid, high.
Dare to do this, once you hear it everything else will sound like crap.

MYKEY wrote:

"Jack Dotson" wrote in message news:uqS5c.28639$_w.523829@attbi_s53...

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.


If you want that sound, use magis. Triamp with electronic x over. Grab a
subwoof that can run in mono, or use two. 3 stereo power amps. I would like
you to add to this a pair of 31 band 1/3 octive cut only EQ's. The electronic
crossover should have digital delay on each output so you can correct phase
error in low, mid, high.
Dare to do this, once you hear it everything else will sound like crap.

Or just get the Outlaw Audio 7 channel amplifier and their ICBM
electronic control module.($300 IIRC). With their processor, it's
about $2000 new and ~$1800 if you get the "B Stock" deal they
now have.

No need to do insane things to drive a full setup of Maggies.

Oh - seriously check out the Martin Logan hybrids. They sound
to me almost exactly like a MMG and a subwoofer - but without
the kludge factor of having 2 subs and 2 MMGs. 5 ohms, so anything
that will run the Maggies will run these. Oh - they also do low
frequencies, because with a conventional woofer, it may BE -20db,
but there will be some 25hz component in the music whereas a
pure planar just cuts off like a switch at the low end.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news:hrl6c.36843$SR1.43153@attbi_s04...
MYKEY wrote:

"Jack Dotson" wrote in message
news:uqS5c.28639$_w.523829@attbi_s53...

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the
Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I
listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.


If you want that sound, use magis. Triamp with electronic x over. Grab
a
subwoof that can run in mono, or use two. 3 stereo power amps. I would
like
you to add to this a pair of 31 band 1/3 octive cut only EQ's. The
electronic
crossover should have digital delay on each output so you can correct
phase
error in low, mid, high.
Dare to do this, once you hear it everything else will sound like
crap.

Or just get the Outlaw Audio 7 channel amplifier and their ICBM
electronic control module.($300 IIRC). With their processor, it's
about $2000 new and ~$1800 if you get the "B Stock" deal they
now have.

No need to do insane things to drive a full setup of Maggies.

Oh - seriously check out the Martin Logan hybrids. They sound
to me almost exactly like a MMG and a subwoofer - but without
the kludge factor of having 2 subs and 2 MMGs. 5 ohms, so anything
that will run the Maggies will run these. Oh - they also do low
frequencies, because with a conventional woofer, it may BE -20db,
but there will be some 25hz component in the music whereas a
pure planar just cuts off like a switch at the low end.

Yea but ML woofers and their cabinetry will (eventually) shake rattle and
roll and/or something is likely to come loose.
(Committed Maggie owner.)

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news:hrl6c.36843$SR1.43153@attbi_s04...
MYKEY wrote:

"Jack Dotson" wrote in message
news:uqS5c.28639$_w.523829@attbi_s53...

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the
Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I
listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.


If you want that sound, use magis. Triamp with electronic x over. Grab
a
subwoof that can run in mono, or use two. 3 stereo power amps. I would
like
you to add to this a pair of 31 band 1/3 octive cut only EQ's. The
electronic
crossover should have digital delay on each output so you can correct
phase
error in low, mid, high.
Dare to do this, once you hear it everything else will sound like
crap.

Or just get the Outlaw Audio 7 channel amplifier and their ICBM
electronic control module.($300 IIRC). With their processor, it's
about $2000 new and ~$1800 if you get the "B Stock" deal they
now have.

No need to do insane things to drive a full setup of Maggies.

Oh - seriously check out the Martin Logan hybrids. They sound
to me almost exactly like a MMG and a subwoofer - but without
the kludge factor of having 2 subs and 2 MMGs. 5 ohms, so anything
that will run the Maggies will run these. Oh - they also do low
frequencies, because with a conventional woofer, it may BE -20db,
but there will be some 25hz component in the music whereas a
pure planar just cuts off like a switch at the low end.

Actually, I think the ML's are a harder load. They may be 5 ohm's while the
Maggie's are 4, but the Maggie's are a very consistent 4 ohm load and don't
really dip below this. however, I've read that the ML's often drop to a 1
Ohm load. Both are close in terms of sensitivity, so the ML's will actually
bit harder on the amp. Also, I really like the sound of ML's as well, but
the one thing that turned me away from them was the implementation of their
woofers. I always felt there wasn't a smooth transition and I to me there
seemed to be a bit of a gap in the mid-bass region. But, if you get a sub
and don't adjust it correctly with the Maggie's you can certainly have the
same problem.

BTW, I'm helping a friend put together his first serious system which will
consist of four Maggie MMGW's and MMGC, a NAD-T753 receiver, Pioneer DVDP
(he already has this and wants to use in for now, don't know the model but
it does DVDA and SACD), and A SVS sub. He has the everything expect for the
speaker's, his W's are supposed to be in next week, but the C's are still
going to take awhile.

Anyhow, I know allot of people are interested in these new speakers. We're
going to set everything up for him next weekend and I'll report back when I
get to hear these first hand. I don't expect them to match my 1.6's, but I
do think it's going to sound pretty darned good.

Jack Dotson wrote:

Actually, I think the ML's are a harder load. They may be 5 ohm's while the
Maggie's are 4, but the Maggie's are a very consistent 4 ohm load and don't
really dip below this. however, I've read that the ML's often drop to a 1
Ohm load.

Nope. Not electrostatic. 4 ohm planar flat-load tweeter and midrange
simmilar to the Magnepans but with a 6 ohm woofer added. It is really
a very flat load.

the one thing that turned me away from them was the implementation of their
woofers. I always felt there wasn't a smooth transition and I to me there
seemed to be a bit of a gap in the mid-bass region.

Right. The planars integrate a bit better, IMO, than the stats do
in this reguard. It's a totally new application of the planar
technology using a push-pull design that came out last fall.

BTW, I'm helping a friend put together his first serious system which will
consist of four Maggie MMGW's and MMGC, a NAD-T753 receiver, Pioneer DVDP
(he already has this and wants to use in for now, don't know the model but
it does DVDA and SACD), and A SVS sub. He has the everything expect for the
speaker's, his W's are supposed to be in next week, but the C's are still
going to take awhile.

I'd seriously not get the MMG-W for surrounds and get the MMGs instead
as 100hz low end is noticeable compared to 50hz. A lot happens in
movies in the 50-100hz range that is directional in most rooms.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
news:fCu6c.39288$po.330202@attbi_s52...
Jack Dotson wrote:

Actually, I think the ML's are a harder load. They may be 5 ohm's while
the
Maggie's are 4, but the Maggie's are a very consistent 4 ohm load and
don't
really dip below this. however, I've read that the ML's often drop to
a 1
Ohm load.

Nope. Not electrostatic. 4 ohm planar flat-load tweeter and midrange
simmilar to the Magnepans but with a 6 ohm woofer added. It is really
a very flat load.

the one thing that turned me away from them was the implementation of
their
woofers. I always felt there wasn't a smooth transition and I to me
there
seemed to be a bit of a gap in the mid-bass region.

Right. The planars integrate a bit better, IMO, than the stats do
in this reguard. It's a totally new application of the planar
technology using a push-pull design that came out last fall.

BTW, I'm helping a friend put together his first serious system which
will
consist of four Maggie MMGW's and MMGC, a NAD-T753 receiver, Pioneer
DVDP
(he already has this and wants to use in for now, don't know the model
but
it does DVDA and SACD), and A SVS sub. He has the everything expect for
the
speaker's, his W's are supposed to be in next week, but the C's are
still
going to take awhile.

I'd seriously not get the MMG-W for surrounds and get the MMGs instead
as 100hz low end is noticeable compared to 50hz. A lot happens in
movies in the 50-100hz range that is directional in most rooms.

When I went to a dealer wanting to buy a sub for a Tympani IVa I was
rebuffed and told that its bass panels are a subwoofer.

Norman Schwartz wrote:

* * *

(Committed Maggie owner.)

How superfluous! (Cf. a "mortal man.")

Snip..

I'd seriously not get the MMG-W for surrounds and get the MMGs instead
as 100hz low end is noticeable compared to 50hz. A lot happens in
movies in the 50-100hz range that is directional in most rooms.

We're going to have all his speakers set on small and route everything above
100Hz or so (will have to experiment) to his sub. I forget the model number
on the SVS, but I had him order the one that was tuned to a little higher
frequency. It didn't have the bass extension of the bigger models, but
worked very well from about 25Hz to 120Hz, which is about what we need.

BTW, I'll have to check the new ML's out. Sounds interesting.

Jack Dotson wrote:

Snip..


I'd seriously not get the MMG-W for surrounds and get the MMGs instead
as 100hz low end is noticeable compared to 50hz. A lot happens in
movies in the 50-100hz range that is directional in most rooms.


We're going to have all his speakers set on small and route everything above
100Hz or so (will have to experiment) to his sub. I forget the model number
on the SVS, but I had him order the one that was tuned to a little higher
frequency. It didn't have the bass extension of the bigger models, but
worked very well from about 25Hz to 120Hz, which is about what we need.

BTW, I'll have to check the new ML's out. Sounds interesting.

As for bass - the ICBM is the module to get, IMO. Outlaw Audio
designed it to work specifically with Maggnepans. Less money
than some of the other options, which while fine, are still
more money you could spend elsewhere.

Norman Schwartz wrote:

When I went to a dealer wanting to buy a sub for a Tympani IVa I was
rebuffed and told that its bass panels are a subwoofer.

Lol. What they try to sell you these days.

Woofer = large low frequency speaker.
SubWoofer = dual voicecoil 5 lb monster for bass *reinforcement*.

Oh well - silly salesdroid

On 3/19/04 12:24 AM, in article fCu6c.39288$po.330202@attbi_s52, "Joseph
Oberlander" wrote:

Nope. Not electrostatic. 4 ohm planar flat-load tweeter and midrange
simmilar to the Magnepans but with a 6 ohm woofer added. It is really
a very flat load.

The ML Prodigy has a 4 Ohm load with a low of 1 Ohm (!) at 20kHz. That will
tax most amplifiers - and most amps will roll off the sound there.

On 3/16/04 9:04 PM, in article , "Don"
wrote:

I currently have a pair of Vandersteen 1Bs and have decided it's time
to take a step up. Because I like the Vandersteen sound, I'm seriously
considering the 3A Signatures. Based on what I've read, though, I also
think I should demo models from Pro-Ac, Paradigm, Martin Logan, and
Monitor Audio that are in the Vandersteen price range.. Any thoughts
on any of these compared to the Vandersteens? Are there others I
should audition? I'm using a Plinius Mk I integrated amp, play mostly
classical music, and will have the speakers on the shorter wall of a
room that is 15' x 26'. Thanks for all comments and suggestions.

I would audition the Thiel 2.4's - very good sound and an excellent speaker!

Bromo wrote:

On 3/19/04 12:24 AM, in article fCu6c.39288$po.330202@attbi_s52, "Joseph
Oberlander" wrote:


Nope. Not electrostatic. 4 ohm planar flat-load tweeter and midrange
simmilar to the Magnepans but with a 6 ohm woofer added. It is really
a very flat load.


The ML Prodigy has a 4 Ohm load with a low of 1 Ohm (!) at 20kHz. That will
tax most amplifiers - and most amps will roll off the sound there.

The speaker in question was their new hybrid planar speaker. 5 ohms
avegare - 4 at the high end, 6 at the low end.

Jack Dotson wrote:

Good list, but IMO none will match the Maggie magic. I've owned the Vandy
2ce's and they weren't even close to my Maggie 1.6's.

I'd recommend you definitely put these on your audition list. I listened to
several in the ML line and while I like these as well, I thought the
Maggie's were still much better.

Good suggestion, but why not listen to the Maggie 3.6's also. - I don't
think they are that much more than the Vandersteen 3A's.

Jim


"Don" wrote in message
...

I currently have a pair of Vandersteen 1Bs and have decided it's time
to take a step up. Because I like the Vandersteen sound, I'm seriously
considering the 3A Signatures. Based on what I've read, though, I also
think I should demo models from Pro-Ac, Paradigm, Martin Logan, and
Monitor Audio that are in the Vandersteen price range.. Any thoughts
on any of these compared to the Vandersteens? Are there others I
should audition? I'm using a Plinius Mk I integrated amp, play mostly
classical music, and will have the speakers on the shorter wall of a
room that is 15' x 26'. Thanks for all comments and suggestions.