[terry parr]

i have a pair of mmg's that i have recently been powering with an older, (warm-sounding) jvc receiver. 

this weekend, i'm auditioning a parasound model 2250 power amp with an amc av81 preamp.

long story short (as i tend to get too wordy sometimes):  i'm appreciating the clarity and articulation of the parasound (and i don't want to give up the more "honest-rendering" neutrality of the parasound), but i'm missing some low-end "warmth" that the jvc brings to the mmg's. 

would adding a sub to this set-up detract from the very clean presentation that can be enjoyable, but at the same time has been making me miss the warmer character of the jvc.   feel like that there's "something's missing."

i don't want over-emphasized "bass."  i put the word bass in quotes because some people say bass when what they mean is low-end rumble, or low-end distortion. 

i'm not trying to make the mmg's sound like a home-theatre speaker.  not many jazz-trio or string quartet recordings feature the sound of jet planes or artillery fire.  (although, i'm sure some here wouldn't mind hearing the occasional gunshot ring out during a string quartet recording).

i got the mmg's to reproduce music.  not sound "effects."   but i did get used to a bit of "coloration" with the jvc that i don't want to give up.

is it possible to integrate a sub into the overall sound of the mmg's and the parasound amp (where you can begin to "feel" the bow being pulled across stringed instruments), and add a bit more "body" to the low registers of a grand piano? this is the sound quality that i want to improve. i'm not necessarily looking to "feel" the punch of a bass drum, in other words.  (although a little more "impact" there would be nice, too). 

the low-end and bass on this particular set-up is implied, rather than felt.  the overall presentation is more refined with the parasound,  than with the jvc amp. more fine-level detail is often heard (which is appreciated).  but, overall i feel that a bit of "character" is missing.  it's  just a bit too...i don't know.  delicate and "polite" sounding. 

i'm impressed, on the one hand with how the parasound was engineered and "voiced".  they were striving for musical accuracy and neutrality.  and, in a purist sense, that would be the ultimate compliment to a home stereo amplifier designer.  "our design doesn't impart anything, nor does it take anything away.  it presents 'as is' what's fed into it."  and, in this regard i feel they did a great job.  so, i don't want to sound critical of a successfully well-engineered piece.  but, i guess i am being a bit critical.   

i'm just not quite used to hearing an amp this neutral.  i didn't say "cold" or "clinical", or "sterile".  but, it's definitely neutral. 

is it possible to put a sub under this amp (this is strictly for music-only listening), and add a bit of low-end that compliments the very good things that the amp already does, while not marring the overall sound signature between this amp and the mmg's? 

i'm really on the fence with this amp.  (i don't want to lose what the parasound is bringing to the table, but i guess i'm looking to "improve" on neutrality, a bit).             

[NIGHTFALL1970]

I added two Rythmik subs to my 1.7s and love them.

[terry parr]

thanks, nightfall.  rythmik is noted.   i'll have to do some research and then talk to the dealer on tues. (when the amp is due back). 

i'm completely new to the whole idea of adding a sub.  (i've never done home theatre). 

what i'm wanting is a sub to handle some low frequencies, but i want the sub to sound like a seamless extension of the mmg's.

 i don't know if this is possible with the mmg's (and in my small listening space),  but it'll be interesting to find out.     

 

[PMAT]

I believe your goal is achievable with a sub, a musical one.

[plaf26]

I used to have MMG's paired with a Biro Kensington (now out of production).  The plate amp had adjustments for level and crossover point.  I gave up trying to dial in things by ear as every musical selection was different, and I had a tendency to have too much bass.   I wanted my pants legs to flap!  Plus subs often tend to be slow compared to the Maggies.  I now have a pair of Philharmonic Audio 3's, admittedly a bigger budget item, but no fiddling with adjustments to achieve the proper balance--they are really, really flat down to 25-30 Hz.  In addition, I don't feel as though I have to play them as loud as I did the Maggies to hear everything.  That may be very subjective, and my new listening room is a little smaller than the old one, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[steve f]

Rhythmik is my choice too.

[kevin360]

That's a view of a hardwood frame which houses an MMG panel that straddles (no physical contact) an REL Q150 sub. I love the combination. I love the combination in this arrangement even more. 

[Tyson]

Planars don't match well with box subs.  You kicked the box to the curb when you went with a planar, why introduce one back in with a sub? 

Luckily, there's a great OB sub that matches perfectly with planars, the Rythmik Servo OB sub, GR SW-12-16FR:

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/GR_drivers.html

[spons]

Long-time MMG owner here. My advice is that you NOT buy any electronics that make the MMG sound clinical.

I have successfully used many amps and receivers with my MMG's and have never heard from them what you describe with the Parasound hooked up.

My current system is centered around a lowly Marantz 1603 receiver (~$350) and the combination is superb as long as the "Pure Direct" mode is selected on the receiver.

The best system with the MMG's I ever had was based on Odyssey Stratos monos, but I'd bet you would get great results on a budget using a base-level Odyssey Khartago stereo amp or Cyclops integrated.

I don't recommend messing with a subwoofer until you find electronics you like, but I got great results using one of the original Martin-Logan Dynamo subwoofers. However, mine crapped out after a couple years and is now sitting in my basement on a shelf.

[Hear Clifford Brown]

I'm using two Vandersteen 2Wq subs and highly recommend them with Maggies because they blend completely and seamlessly.  I've used them with 1.7's and now 3.7's.  They are fast because they use three 8" drivers rather than one 12' or 15" driver.  There are no adjustments requiring time and patience to get right.  Just two things to set on the back of the sub.  One is the sensitivity control; just set it to match the sensitivity of your MMGs.  The other is the Q control, labeled from 1 to 10.  Set that to 1 or 2 for the tightest bass and you are done.  I've tried other subs (JL Audio, Velodyne) and could never get them adjusted to where they didn't call attention to themselves.   

vandersteen.com/media/files/Manuals/2wqmanual.pdf

[terry parr]

guys, i appreciate all the replies based on everybody's first-hand experience.  which was what i was looking for.    everything was read and considered.  even though peoples' opinions sometimes vary, i'd still rather hear from folks on a board like this, rather than put too much faith and trust in a "formal" review.  here on a/c, we can get down to brass tacks and have some give-and-take exchange.     

i returned the parasound amp back to the dealer today.  got back home, re-connected the jvc rx-317 receiver to the mmg's.  cued up the same tune i played through the parasound amp before disconnecting it this morning.   ("love letter" by bonnie raitt).

since i borrowed the parasound sat. evening, this amp has stayed in my set-up.  i didn't do any back-and-forth switching between sat. night and today.   

with the jvc now hooked up, i pressed "play" and as soon as the music was heard through the speakers i instantly thought:  "the bass is back!  my music is back!!"

now, granted:  the mmg's are not known for their bass extension.  they don't extend down much past 50hz.  but, what i instantly recognized and heard after reconnecting the jvc amp to them was that the parasound amp was draining the low-end out of these speakers.  (and, i thought it would work exactly the opposite. i thought that with the parasound amp being listed at about 350watts into a 4ohm load, that this would automatically bring out every bit of low-end that the mmg's were capable of). 

NOT TRUE!  with the parasound, virtually all of the bass and low-end quantity was gone.  i would've never believed that the parasound would have sounded this shy and faint in the lower regions considering its' rated output.  and the jvc by comparison sounds so much better and weightier in the low-end (and the jvc's output is only rated at about half of what the parasound amp is).

is it possible that even though the jvc is only rated at half (measured in watts) compared to what the parasound is, that the jvc is delivering more of its' available amps and current directly into the mmg's?    i don't know.  there's something going on that makes the jvc a better-sounding match with the mmg's than the parasound that can't be gleaned from a spec sheet.  one thing i know:  one combination is decidedly different (and better to my ears) than the other.
     
it's the difference between looking through a plate-glass window and seeing and hearing through glass, someone playing an acoustic bass, or hearing the bass player in the room with you.  (okay.  maybe not that dramatic a difference.  but almost).  the difference in low-end reproduction on the mmg's between these two amps really is quite remarkable.  it's a substantial difference.  and you would be mis-led (as i was) into thinking which amp between these two might perform better if you were only looking at the rated output to base your decision on.   


final verdict for me:  the parasound model 2250 and the mmg's don't make a good pairing.  the parasound does allow you to hear a bit more of some finer-level detail here and there (trace elements that you may not hear with the jvc).  but, considering what you give up in the low-end (which is an unacceptable trade-off for me), then making a change from the jvc to the parasound is definitely not worth it.  not even close.

yes, it's always fun to hear detail from a new piece of gear on familiar recordings that you arn't used to hearing.  i enjoy that.  but, the parasound doesn't give you enough of these moments to make it a contest between it and the jvc.   

i also noticed when i got back home and started listening again through the jvc, what an un-natural rendering the parasound gives to the sound of a grand piano.  listening to janis siegel from the tender trap album (with fred hersch on piano), i thought:  "ah.  that's more like it!"             

[terry parr]

as far as eventually incorporating a sub into my mmg set-up, the parasound amp (which i thought i could build off of), won't be a part of the equation. 

[SteveFord]

It could be the amp or it could be the preamp.  It could be both!
Trying out different components is a lot of fun and one thing I've found is to NEVER have any preconceived notions with stereo gear.

[Brad]

I'm with Steve on this one.   You get surprised a lot in this hobby/avocation.
Sometimes thing work well together that SHOULDN'T.   Enjoy them!

[simoon]

amc av81 preamp

Many AMC preamps are phase (polarity) inverting.

If you are hearing less or lower quality bass from the Parasound with the AMC preamp, than with your receiver, could be it is because you are hearing the effects of the absolute phase being incorrect.

Not only will bass not have the same impact, but midrange will have a slight hollow sound, and the image will lose focus.

it's the difference between looking through a plate-glass window and seeing and hearing through glass, someone playing an acoustic bass, or hearing the bass player in the room with you.  (okay.  maybe not that dramatic a difference.  but almost).  the difference in low-end reproduction on the mmg's between these two amps really is quite remarkable.  it's a substantial difference.  and you would be mis-led (as i was) into thinking which amp between these two might perform better if you were only looking at the rated output to base your decision on.

Sure sounds like you are describing a system that is out of absolute phase!

I just can't believe that an inexpensive JVC receiver of any vintage outperforming a Parasound amp, especially in the bass.

I would be very interested to see what would happen if you got that amp and preamp back, and flipped the absolute phase of the speakers.


Oh, and to add, since he Maggies are an almost purely resistive load at lower and mid frequencies (I believe they become somewhat inductive at high frequencies), it seems to me that absolute phase would be more noticeable than on box speakers, with their mish-mash of phase angles.

[terry parr]

Many AMC preamps are phase (polarity) inverting.



I just can't believe that an inexpensive JVC receiver of any vintage outperforming a Parasound amp, especially in the bass.

I would be very interested to see what would happen if you got that amp and preamp back, and flipped the absolute phase of the speakers.

thank-you for this, simoon.  to tell you the truth, while i had the parasound here with me, i never experimented with inverting the polarity.  i just shrugged my shoulders and thought that a stark, very neutral-sounding amp does have its' applications, but that it wouldn't "fit in" (and sound very musical) with the rest of my components.

i thought that if someone wants to listen analytically (all the time), then this is the amp for you!  (just don't expect it to get your feet tapping). 

the next power amp i audition (and it will be with the very same av81 that i used with the parasound), i'll intentionally experiment with reversing the polarity and see if the av81 preamp was indeed responsible for the parasound amp sounding like it did. 

it would've taken me less than five minutes to do this while the parasound amp was here!  i wish i had, but it never crossed my mind.

but, i do appreciate the info.         

[terry parr]

delete.  (double post).