[brooklyn]

I use an AVA Fet valve 400R amp and an AVA Fet valve preamp with my 1.7s and this combo eliminated all the brightness issues that I had.  I don't need the resistors anymore.  I get clean life-like sound and fantastic deep bass.

These day's all valve equipment might be a good idea. Back when I was starting out I would go over to friends homes with my little Sumo 9+ 60wpc amp and inject some life into there all tube systems.

[mark funk]

Dam, Nightfall1970, I was reading this and before I got down to yours I was thinking? Over all these years I have never heard any one call Maggies bright . I had a pair of MG-1s or was it MG-2s back in the late 70s early 80s and I would not call them bright. But, back then they did not have ribben tweeters. I have RAAL ribbens in my speakers now and they are far from being bright. I was thinking, it might be the amps. I have heard but not for my self that this amp Synergy 450  http://www.avahifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169&Itemid=231 does a real fine job driving Maggies!
Night, I would like to hear you set. I have been thinking over the last few years about trying a pair of Pans again, that's what we called them back then. I never had the watts even with my Dyna 416 at 200 watts to realy drive those what ever they were MG-1s of 2s. What about a pair of MMGs ( what a deal hay) with my Fet Valve Ultra+ 550 at 280 per side? I think any of Frank's stuff (AVA) would eliminate the need for resistore rolling. Just my 2c



                                                                                       

[Davey]

Let me see, I haven't had tone controls since I had Crown equipment back in the seventies. Personally, I would rather have a balance control but these day's I don't even have that..

You don't know what you're missing.    A proper form of equalization can be an essential tool for taming a multitude of problems in current audio systems.

Unfortunately, "tone controls" developed a stigma through the years....only partially justified.  There was a belief by the audiophile that if "I have to use tone controls, there must be something wrong with my system."

Of course, most everyone is listening to some sort of equalized audio every time they throw a CD in the player.  The recording engineers are tinkering with tonal balance constantly.  For us, on the playback end of the chain, to assume that no further equalization might be necessary is a bit naive.  Everyone's listening environment is different.

Cheers,

Dave.

[kevin360]

Hey Davey (and Josh), I had a Yamaha preamp back in the early 80s with a 3-band parametric EQ (IIRC) as tone controls - now that's pretty darn useful! This conversation is almost making me want to dig out my old SAE 1800, but it would need quite a bit of work.

In all honesty, I've been listening to my 3.7s without resistors (no jumpers or fuses either) for a couple of months now - on all but the most offensive recordings, I really like them this way. I would call the sound extended, but not bright.

[Davey]

Just to be clear....I'm not recommending everybody use resistors for all their Maggies.  I'm just recommending you use them if you need them.  Obviously the different models and differing room environments may necessitate use.

But if your speaker is too bright and you decide to search for a different amplifier to tame the brightness vice using the resistors then......... 

Cheers,

Dave.

[brooklyn]

Unfortunately, "tone controls" developed a stigma through the years....only partially justified.  There was a belief by the audiophile that if "I have to use tone controls, there must be something wrong with my system."

Actually, tone controls and balance controls are said to degrade the sound somewhat that's why, with the better preamps there are none. Most of the money that is saved goes into better parts for better sound quality, of so they say..

[Davey]

That might have been common many years ago, but "tone controls" nowadays don't degrade the sound......unless of course you consider the actual response shaping (equalization) they're providing "degrading."

I disagree that balance controls ever degraded equipment "sound."  At least no more than a volume control would.  Both of those devices being passive, they were inherently less obtrusive than active devices.

Anyways, we're well off your original topic.  I sense that you're looking for a variety of subjective opinions regarding different amps....and unfortunately, I can't be of much help there. 

Cheers,

Dave.

[brooklyn]

Please visit the Magnepan site and read the statement about room size in the FAQ

Yes, the 1.7 looks like it would work in my room according to Magnepan but I was looking for first hand experience for my 11X15 room. A few months ago I spoke to someone at Magnepan about it and was told the bass might be a problem, meaning, to much bass for the size of the room.

I disagree that balance controls ever degraded equipment "sound."  At least no more than a volume control would.  Both of those devices being passive, they were inherently less obtrusive than active devices.

While a volume control is necessary on a preamp, a tone control or balance control is not.. I do agree they would be nice to have. 

[jsm71]

My room with 1.7s is 13' x 12'.  Bass is not too much.  I added a subwoofer just for more foundation and ultra low support.

[rw@cn]

Yes, the 1.7 looks like it would work in my room according to Magnepan but I was looking for first hand experience for my 11X15 room. A few months ago I spoke to someone at Magnepan about it and was told the bass might be a problem, meaning, to much bass for the size of the room.

I doubt that the 3.7s will sound as good in your room (assuming correct positioning and good room treatment) as in a larger room (same assumptions). But with judicious room treatment you can have them sounding better than 1.7s in the same room.

[brooklyn]

My room with 1.7s is 13' x 12'.  Bass is not too much.  I added a subwoofer just for more foundation and ultra low support.

That's good to know. I have always been very satisfied with the bass I've got from Maggies over the years. I even like the bass from the MMG's.

I thought about the 1.7 in my room but wasn't sure.

I do listen to the MMG's relatively near field and they sound great other then wanting them to be a little sweeter on the top end which I'm hoping to get with the tube preamp.   

[brooklyn]

I'm still looking for an amp to go with my Prima Luna Prologue 3 preamp and two new amps caught my attention in my price range. ($2500.00) The McCormack DNA-250 and the Parasound A21... Both are 250 wpc which is the power I want but I know anything about either..

I have read elsewhere on this forum that the DNA-250 sounds warm or colored. I contacted Spirit Sound and they say it should be a good match with the Maggies.. With having a tube preamp I don't want to much warmth.

Does anyone have any first hand experience with either of these amps??

[dawnrazor]

Hey B,

I have 2 A21s with my mmgs.

It is a great pairing.  Plenty of power and some warmth.

I had a Pass labs before and that was a great amp and I highly recommend that brand.  For the money the Parasound halo is in the same league as the pass and hard to beat as a value leader.  I cant think of a better amp for the money.

Also if you have warmth issues you should try the choke tweak.  Often that is all that is needed to "warm" up the mags.  Rc networks too are a must.

[brooklyn]

I have 2 A21s with my mmgs.

It is a great pairing.  Plenty of power and some warmth.

I had a Pass labs before and that was a great amp and I highly recommend that brand.  For the money the Parasound halo is in the same league as the pass and hard to beat as a value leader.  I cant think of a better amp for the money.

Also if you have warmth issues you should try the choke tweak.  Often that is all that is needed to "warm" up the mags.  Rc networks too are a must.

Thank you very much for the info, I am actually hoping for something used in really good condition to get a feel for an amp with my Prima Luna and MMG's I would also love to hear from someone who has the McCormack DNA-250 I think it also might be a good choice but don't want to spend $2500.00 unless I'm sure.
I would also love to hear a D class amp, the thought of a light weight amp with the power to drive the Maggies is very appealing.

[kevin360]

IMO, if you liked one, you'd like the other (DNA-250 & A21) - both are excellent amps. Both are quite linear and have similar power ratings. The same can be said for a number of other amps. I won't recommend one over the other; I'll just say that if you pick one, don't worry about whether or not the other one would be better. I could be happy with either (even though I've become a bottlehead).

[Freo-1]

Audio Research amps have always been an excellent match for Maggies.   

[brooklyn]

Thanks everyone for all the replies, I'm leaning towards the McCormack DNA-250 but if something come's up on the used market I may go in that direction.

[a.wayne]

You don't know what you're missing.    A proper form of equalization can be an essential tool for taming a multitude of problems in current audio systems.

Unfortunately, "tone controls" developed a stigma through the years....only partially justified.  There was a belief by the audiophile that if "I have to use tone controls, there must be something wrong with my system."

Of course, most everyone is listening to some sort of equalized audio every time they throw a CD in the player.  The recording engineers are tinkering with tonal balance constantly.  For us, on the playback end of the chain, to assume that no further equalization might be necessary is a bit naive.  Everyone's listening environment is different.

Cheers,

Dave.

Correct so why add EQ on top of EQ,  isn't the idea to hear what is in the recordings as neutral as possible , hence the lack of tone controls.

Room correction should be done passively IMO ....

[kevin360]

Correct so why add EQ on top of EQ,  isn't the idea to hear what is in the recordings as neutral as possible , hence the lack of tone controls.

Room correction should be done passively IMO ....

I think the answer to your question is that it depends on the recording. What if the engineer was a putz? What if the material was engineered in a manner that is brutal to my ears, but I like the music? Should I just live with something that could be made more appealing to my ears just because someone else decreed that it should sound as it does?

The only EQ I have in my system is the variability of level between the subs and mains, but there are some recordings that make me want proper equalization. It isn't so much about room correction as recording correction - I am doing my room correction passively (although, I can see benefit in an active methodology as well).

[Davey]

Correct so why add EQ on top of EQ,  isn't the idea to hear what is in the recordings as neutral as possible , hence the lack of tone controls.

Room correction should be done passively IMO ....

I'm not sure how to respond to that.  Are you satisified with the recording balance/quality you hear from many contemporary recordings?

As an example, I'm listening (as we speak) to the Alison Krauss / Robert Plant "Raising Sand" album from a few years ago.  This recording received a lot of accolades, but I find it one of the most horrible recordings I've ever heard.  I need to activate some considerable bass EQ to make it listenable.  (I don't understand why Alison Krauss lowered herself to this type of thing....but I guess that's another subject.) 

Anyways, I find EQ an essential requirement for making many very marginal recordings tolerable.  You can only do so much with "passive room treatment" before you need to take more drastic measures.

On the other hand, I've also been listening lately to some of the Channel Classics recordings.  Last night, Florilegium Haydn symphonies No.93/94/101.  Very nice recording.  It's like you're there.

It seems like Brooklyn has some of the answers he's been looking for.  Sorry for the threadjack.

Cheers,

Dave.