[AirCeej]

To whom:

I’m designing a dedicated 12-seat 6.1 Media Room with the following:
•   24’ L, x 20’ 3” W x 9½’ H = 4617 Cubic Feet
•   Source component TBD
•   Anthem AVM20 Pre/Pro.
•   Sunfire Cinema Seven Amp.
•   1.6QR’s for mains unless anything at or below the price dethrones ‘em.
•   Possibly the 626R’s for surrounds
•   4 SVS 16-46 PCi’s – 1 in each corner (according to research at Harmon International)
•   Sub parametric equalizers TBD

As the space and layout of the room is pretty-well structured, I can’t go with Magnepans for surround duties, which then forces me to choose something else to complement them.  Ergo, my questions are:

1.   Have you auditioned the ‘1.6QR’s and the ‘626R’s in the same room with the same equipment for any appreciable amount of time using software you know very well?

2.   If yes to the above, how did the VMPSesses    fair against the Maggies in terms of:
•   Attack
•   Decay
•   Soundstaging
•   Imaging
•   Transparency
•   Micro dynamics
•   Macro dynamics
•   Unraveling complex program material
•   Horizontal dispersion
•   Vertical dispersion
•   Timber
•   Harmonics
•   Octave-to-octave balance
•   Upper frequency extension
•   The drivers sounding like they’re “cut from the same cloth”
•   The ability to suspend disbelief

3.   Given what you found, would you say that the ‘R’s are equal to or better than the ‘QR’s in most if not all regards?  If so, this will give me a more compelling reason aside from general curiosity to audition them against the Maggies when I get the chance (until then – presumably like most of you, I’m very busy).
 
So, if you have spent time with these two in the aforementioned conditions, please let me know the:
•   Shape of the room along with any thoughts on its general acoustics
•   Ancillary equipment used
•   Speaker placement
•               Seating position within the room in relation to the speakers
•   Source material used
to give me a better idea of the auditioning environment.  Your insight and experience in this matter will be most helpful.


Warm regards,
=AirCeej=

[Andrikos]

HEY Airceej!!!!

How ya doin' buddy? So great to "see" you again in virtual-land!

Gentlemen,
You are about to meet a guy whose eloquence is next to none!
Airceej is painfully objective and somebody who will take no prisoners in his quest for audio perfection.
You will also see that his writing style and sophistication leaves "professional" reviewers in the DUST!

Welcome to AudioCircle Airceej!
This forum has become that much better now.

Andreas

[AirCeej]

Andreas!!!!!!!

I’m truly honored by your incredibly warm and humbling introduction; it’s good to read of you again my friend – veh-heh-herrry good indeed!!!  And with that, a belated “Happy Holidays” to you and yours.  I certainly hope you were a good boy this past festive season – enough to rake-in all the A/V goodies your heart intended (within fiscal reason of course)!  But moreover, I hope it was safe and extremely harmonious for you and all those you hold dear.

And certainly my not being without tit-for-tat:  Andreas – gentlepersons was x-tuh-REEEMLY instrumental in upholding a thread I maintained at AVS covering the high and lowlights of Mirage’s budget-induced Omni Series…  Man…  That takes me back……   …It certainly was a case study in not only maintaining the focus of an extremely lengthy thread, but how to conjoin the heartfelt observations of some very down-to-earth folk.  Ah yes…  …yes indeed…  Start via a shaker molded with altruism, pour-in a healthy does of levity whist adding pleasant intoxicants of mutual respect, and integrity…  Impart the occasional dashes of moderating spice, seasoned with huge sums of lucidity; cap it off with a great willingness to imbibe in the subject at hand – shake well, pour into a forum near you, and that which arises becomes a makeshift pub where everybody knows your virtual name!

Which brings about a good point: if I can’t find those here who’ve had first-ear experience with the subject at hand, perhaps I’ll conduct an audition when time lends itself readily to the task…

In the mean time, itsa a whowle gnew bawl gaim!

=AirCeej=

[chiahaochang]

It certainly looks like you'll have quite a system.  

1. Have you auditioned the ‘1.6QR’s and the ‘626R’s in the same room with the same equipment for any appreciable amount of time using software you know very well?

I can't currently help you there, but I have Magnepan MG1.6QRs too and I'm currently looking for speakers to audition.  VMPS's are high on my list.  I was honestly thinking more of the RM2, or the new RM30s.  But, if you're interested, I'll let you know.

[AirCeej]

chiahaochang,

Thank you.  You bet, as long as the audition is done:

1. In the same acoustic.

2. Through the same equipment (mixing and matching to wrest a better understanding of the speakers' capabilities is of course warranted).

3. Answering most of the criteria I laid-out in the first post - depending on how much time you have.

I would be very interested in your findings.
 

Warm regards,
=AirCeej=

[cinema&sound]

I am VMPS dealer in Chicago area.

I had Maggie 2.6R center, and 3.6R as well as the current small panel surrounds / main speakers in my current home theater room showroom.

IMHO the Maggie’s are great speakers, but ONLY for two channel. They are not very good multi-channel speakers.

My biggest problem with them is that they CONSISTENTLY blow fuses at even moderately high (theater levels) volumes.

Dipoles are great for surrounds and the Maggie small panel models are OK for surround speakers.

 I just think that the VMPS speakers are better values for money and more accurate.

PS the Maggie center is particularly bad as it rolls off sharply at 160Hz

My pick would be:

All 5 or 7 626R models with center behind screen or with the LRC horizontal on RPTV or stand in front of TV.
OR
For more $$$
3 RM40s or 3 RM30s as front array and the dipole ribbons (if movie DVDs are more primary) over SACD or DVD audio. This is actually room dependant, but dipoles work with more rooms and give a diffuse rear sound field which most DVDs are mixed for.

As SACD & DVD-A become more popular (who knows), direct radiating rears make more sense, but most people can’t make the space sacrifices necessary for this to work. (Room layout)

[AirCeej]

I am VMPS dealer in Chicago area.

While I appreciate your ability to respond, what was given obviously doesn’t help; to wit:

I had Maggie 2.6R center, and 3.6R as well as the current small panel surrounds / main speakers in my current home theater room showroom.

None of the abovementioned speakers address the heart of my question; and seeing that the needed comparison in the required conditions wasn’t made either, you further missed the stated mark.  Hopefully you’re aware that communicating non-supported statements of a few model designations from one manufacturer’s line, doesn’t cover specific questions from another series; especially when you lend no experience with the series in question.  While each manufacturer tends to have their ‘house sound’, it’s wise not to use blanket statements unless you know how to supply comparative information to illustrate the point.

IMHO the Maggie’s are great speakers, but ONLY for two channel. They are not very good multi-channel speakers.

No offense, but without providing substantive observations to support your statement, it’s unfortunately useless to me and those interested in the comparative fidelity of the ‘1.6’s to the ‘626’s.  And if you only witnessed certain of the R Series (and the as yet unnamed surrounds), then the general use of “Maggie’s” in your ‘summation’ makes it even more vague for all of the apparent reasons.  So I may better understand if your ‘experience’ will actually lend assistance in this matter, please answer the following.

What problems/observations/anomalies/etc. led you to your abovementioned ‘conclusion’ was it:
1.   Lack of dynamics
2.   The Venetian Blind Effect
3.   Poor room interaction
4.   Comparatively narrow horizontal dispersion
5.   Equipment mismatch
6.   Seating Arrangement
7.   Crossover point(s) from the Pre/Pro or receiver
8.   Lack of time and experience
9.   Other

As you lend nary a clue as to how the Magnepans in your store were pressed into their HT service, what:
10.   Were the room dimensions the speakers were placed in?
11.   Would you say was/is the acoustic signature(s) of the room?
12.   Were the speaker’s positions in relation to the room?
13.   Was the seating arrangement of the audience in relation to the room and speakers?
14.   Equipment was used?
15.   Surrounds were used, MGMC1’s, the (F/S) MMG W’s, or something else entirely?
16.   Was the actual time after break-in spent with them?
17.   Source material was used?

In general:
18.   Is your acquaintance with the ‘R’s and the unmentioned surrounds what led you to make a sweeping conclusion for Maggies in general, or do you have actual experience with the ‘1.6QR’s that you’d like to divulge?  Be aware that I’ve experimented with the ‘1.6’s in the very situation I’ll use them in, and know they’ll work as intended.

My biggest problem with them is that they CONSISTENTLY blow fuses at even moderately high (theater levels) volumes.

As the ‘1.6’s are more tolerant of dynamic swings at a given volume in comparison to their R Series brethren, this wont be as much of a problem - if it arises at all seeing that I listen below nominal reference.  Again, do you have experience with the ‘1.6’s in how they relate to the ‘626’s or not?

Dipoles are great for surrounds and the Maggie small panel models are OK for surround speakers.

Though this once again is an unqualified statement, you may’ve understood from the original post that I’m not interested in other Magnepans (especially as surrounds); if I were; I would’ve made the plea more general.

I just think that the VMPS speakers are better values for money and more accurate.

That’s a nice opinion and all but it doesn’t address my specific questions.  I’m not looking for random unqualified responses, if so I would’ve opened the thread to that very purpose.  If you can qualify the above statement (actually your whole ‘response’) with the litmus test listed in the original post thereby staying on track, it would be much appreciated.

PS the Maggie center is particularly bad as it rolls off sharply at 160Hz

Again, more indistinctness…  Do you mean the 2.6 (which bottoms somewhere in the 40’s if memory serves) used in the HT Showroom you mentioned, the CC3 which goes down to (a placement dependant) 80Hz @ -4dB, or something else?  Nevertheless had you paid attention, you may’ve surmised that I wont be using a center channel.  I don’t use one with my Martin Logans, and I wont use one in the second system as well.

My pick would be:

All 5 or 7 626R models with center behind screen or with the LRC horizontal on RPTV or stand in front of TV.
OR
For more $$$
3 RM40s or 3 RM30s as front array and the dipole ribbons (if movie DVDs are more primary) over SACD or DVD audio. This is actually room dependant, but dipoles work with more rooms and give a diffuse rear sound field which most DVDs are mixed for.

Seeing that you provided absolutely no care in addressing my questions; and what you did relay has no bearing on the subject matter, I obviously can’t put credence into the above opinion either.  Moreover, if your inability to genuinely handle direct issues is any indication to the way you deal with the specific needs and questions of customers, it’s a good thing you didn’t waste my time in person.


To whom:

Obviously seeking the opinion of others doesn’t replace personal experience in a given quest; although the well-written response (given the tenor of the quest) does aid in the initial research.  Nonetheless, if I were looking for low-fidelity answers, I would’ve written the originating post in those terms, rather than trying to wrest a better understanding of the contestant’s higher fidelity from those with actual experience.  

Given the above, I offer the following:

If I have time to do a proper audition of the given entrants, you can DAMN well be sure that you’ll have a great deal of communicated insight to their given properties; not a host of unsupported fluff found common in (sic) manya today’s reviews and forum banter.  And if I auditioned without the ability to apply needed follow-ups, I’ll succinctly communicate what I found given the environment of the occurrence with a goodly amount of provisions and caveats.  If the audition was conducted without having time to ascertain anything of repeatable value, I wont waste your time reading opinionated bullshit, let alone demean my integrity by writing it.  

If I find that the ‘626’s dethrone the Magnepan’s (a pretty lofty task considering all that they do right – something that the Martin Logans of my experience can’t do let alone the Vandersteen 5A’s I auditioned against the ‘1.6’s for a few hours), then I’ll report it, not because I may or may not purchase them – because they earned it.  

In closing: If you can offer assistance to the original questions of this thread then please do so; if you can’t, please don’t.


Warm regards,
=AirCeej=

[ted_b]

Airceej,
I understand that you are a veteran of forums like these.  As such you certainly must understand that the gaining of knowledge about these ever-changing products/services includes the quite-informal process of grabbing relevant and somewhat irrelevant pieces of data, comparing them against what others say and do, and then forming opinions as best you can.  To that end, anytime I see a post or some question that is posed, and have some information to share that is in the "neighborhood" I try to participate.  (Although I'm fairly new to this forum as a posting participant, I've been reading here for a long time, and I post regularly around the related a/v forums).  Anyway, I believe that when someone asks for a comparison of Maggies and VMPS speakers, however granularly specific he/she gets, if someone else has some tangential information to offer about Maggie and VMPS speakers then it''s a good thing.  It furthers the learning process.  I'm glad someone like Cinema&Sound spoke up, given his Maggie/VMPS experience, and his posting should be welcomed, even though it was not EXACTLY what you asked for.   Moreover, I would suspect that the EXACT match for your request, including all the data points, has less than a 1% chance of appearing on this or any other forum.    Anyway, in the meantime, good luck with your mission.  

Ted_B

[Marbles]

I looked at the questions asked in the original post and thought "who would go to that much trouble to answer this guy in this detail"?

Then I saw that Cinema tried to help him.

Once I saw Airceej's response, I now know no one here will help this asshole.

Good luck in your quest Airceej, but don't expect a doctoral thesis on the comparisons of two very specific speakers in controlled tests here.

Your rude response to Cinema assured that.

[big gun junge]

Maggies suck! VMPS rules!

How's that for objective?

[JohnR]

So much for "taking no prisoners," it looks more like he shot himself in the foot...

[Code Chemist]

"I’m not looking for random unqualified responses"

Then may I suggest you don't post on global internet forums?

The style of your reponse to Cinema sounds as if you're reviewing a paper submitted to a journal and smacks of academic elitism. How unpleasant.  And here I was thinking how friendly and easy going people are on this forum.  Oh well.  

[ctviggen]

To add to what others have said, even if there was someone who could post the material you're asking for, would you want to believe them?  You and I could test the same two sets of speakers, using the same materials, in the same room, with the same amps, etc., and I could like one and not the other, while you could have the exact opposite opinion.  For instance, a lot of people like B&W speakers, but I think they are terrible -- they are ear-piercingly bright yet have muddy mids and crappy lows.  Nonetheless, there are tons of people who like their sound.  

Posts on forums like this are merely informative.  Without actually going and doing your own testing, there's no way you can really hear what's right for you.

[dirtold]

I know that this type of response is not recommended, however in this case I feel it is warranted.

I second Marbles comments whole heartedly and with vigor.

[ABlakeG]

Not to mention the fact that Cinema tested better speakers (the 3.6R) than what the guy was considering buying. I agree with Marbles wholeheartedly.

Blake

And anyone that thinks the 1.6QR is better than the Vandy 5A is smoking crack, IMHO.

[AirCeej]

Airceej,
I understand that you are a veteran of forums like these.

True.

As such you certainly must understand that the gaining of knowledge about these ever-changing products/services includes the quite-informal process of grabbing relevant and somewhat irrelevant pieces of data, comparing them against what others say and do, and then forming opinions as best you can.

Uh no.  Anyone can offer-up an opinion, and if that were all I was interested in, then that would’ve been the objective I would’ve written to.  There’s is so much unsubstantiated opinion in any of the given forums I’ve read; that when I post a thread, I make sure that contributors understand the auspices of the environment to help keep noise to a minimum (a verrrrry successful practice).  By doing so, the environment provides a much safer haven for learning clarity, and as originator, I help make sure that we stay on track – such is my interest.

As clarity and sticking with the subject matter is key – thereby imparting respect to the spirit of the thread and care toward those who read it; I don’t care to weed through a plethora of noise-based opinions just to extract a questionable margin of what the authors may be trying to impart – in a thread that I start.  Especially when I have to question and re-question the conditions through which the ‘author’ made his or her blanket assumptions, only to find them baseless when trying to ascertain a more objective understanding of that subject.  Again, I have more to do in my day than trying to discern the hidden meanings of those who can’t stay on track let alone validate their findings.  That’s why the beginning is written the way it is: for those who can contribute – do so; for those who are interested and can’t – learn on the side; for those who have a pertinent question – come on in!

To that end, if you care to do the research, you’ll find my approach serves a highly successful axiom on many counts – more than I have time to enumerate here.  This is a good place to start; http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214670&highlight=omnisat

Back to your above sentence: if you modify with …”that the gaining of knowledge qualified through supported experience and so written”…  …”comparing them against the substantiated experience of what others say”…  Then you’d be off to a good start.

To that end, anytime I see a post or some question that is posed, and have some information to share that is in the "neighborhood" I try to participate. (Although I'm fairly new to this forum as a posting participant, I've been reading here for a long time, and I post regularly around the related a/v forums). Anyway, I believe that when someone asks for a comparison of Maggies and VMPS speakers, however granularly specific he/she gets, if someone else has some tangential information to offer about Maggie and VMPS speakers then it's a good thing.

Sure, if it applies to what the originator is looking for (so its always nice and respectful to know the neighborhood), which chiahaochang offered (though divergent) and Cinema&Sound didn’t; and believe it or not, as the originator of the thread, I kiiiiiiinda know what I’m looking for.  As you may’ve gleaned, I’m not interested in a comparison of any VMPS to any Magnepan.  Ergo chiahaochang offered a future comparison to the ‘1.6QR with one of the two VMPS’s of his choice.  Though hinged only on half of the original subject matter, I told him of my interest.  Cinema&Sound on the other hand, addressed nothing of the subject matter, and I let it be known that it was of no help, and it would be nice if C&S'd stick with the subject at hand.  

It furthers the learning process.

Unfortunately it doesn’t, as again there was nothing offered to satisfy the subject-cum-quest, and what was relayed had nothing to do with a direct comparison to any VMPS and Magnepan within the same acoustic at the same time – which of course is divergent from the theme.

I'm glad someone like Cinema&Sound spoke up, given his Maggie/VMPS experience,

Again as the originator - I’m not due to the fact that the (um) ‘experience’ is not qualified, which is something I specifically asked for.  Ted, Any carbon-based sack of water can say that they spent time with a given piece of equipment, but unless that time is supported through substantiated experience enough to weed-out the good from the chaff, then what we have is a baseless opinion – not the education the thread is setup for.

and his posting should be welcomed, even though it was not EXACTLY what you asked for.

It would be “welcomed” if I were looking for inapplicable noise, just wanting to chat, maybe a buckshot approach, or just looking for a frivolous opinion that disrespects the goal.  Had C&S satisfied my requirements (or even met some of them, and through later dialogue find that he or she is on the up-and-up) then what they wrote including the recommendation at the end would’ve actually carried weight.

Morover, I would suspect that the EXACT match for your request, including all the data points, has less than a 1% chance of appearing on this or any other forum.

A very good thing; and as someone who’s been around the virtual block a few times I didn’t expect for all of the criteria to be met.  It is though the basis for heightened dialog and the guide to stay within to better understand the subject at hand.  And if no one has corroborating experience to offer – it’s not a bad thing.

Anyway, in the meantime, good luck with your mission.

Thanks and as always, it will be successful.  However, this thread isn’t devoted to a study in the finer points of ‘net-based communication, and seeing that it is yours to offer information when in the correct neighborhood, I suspect you have information to supply concerning the Magnepan and VMPS in question (according to your statement), so please offer us what you have, as I’d like to stay on track.


Warm regards,
=AirCeej=

[ted_b]

Let's see: pedantic, rude, arrogant.  Nah...not worth my time.  Thanks,

[maxwalrath]

That's great airceej, but you didn't have to be so rude about it. Your snobbery and elitist attitude really shines through. You must've spent 20 minutes writing your response to Cinema when you could have read in 20 seconds that his info wasn't exactly what you were looking for. You could have either ignored his post or simply written, "thanks, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. I need a specific comparison of the two speakers mentioned with the criteria I outlined earlier."

You took the time to tear into every part of Cinema's post, and from what is apparant to everyone except you, you had no reason to do so. Kudos to you and your scientific method of fact gathering, but are you really such a pompous asshole that you would treat another member of this forum in such a rude manner...especially when his intentions were good?

If you've been around the audio block a few times, which site gave you the impression it's OK to be a prick and not have people be a little upset? Where did you learn to author a post like you wrote to cinema instead of the two sentences I put in quotations above?

[AirCeej]

That's great airceej, but you didn't have to be so rude about it. Your snobbery and elitist attitude really shines through. You must've spent 20 minutes writing your response to Cinema when you could have read in 20 seconds that his info wasn't exactly what you were looking for. You could have either ignored his post or simply written, "thanks, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. I need a specific comparison of the two speakers mentioned with the criteria I outlined earlier."

You took the time to tear into every part of Cinema's post, and from what is apparant to everyone except you, you had no reason to do so. Kudos to you and your scientific method of fact gathering, but are you really such a pompous asshole that you would treat another member of this forum in such a rude manner...especially when his intentions were good?

Nah, I don't know the person so I really don't have the want or need to "tear into every part of Cinema's post", just let the person know what I was specifically looking for.  If that is seen as "snobbery" to those resorting to name calling, then those of you have certainly found your element, and a greater definition of 'rude'.

[Tyson]

AirCeej,
I believe the only person that can answer your questions to your satisfaction is you.  Why don't you take advantage of the trial period from VMPS and do the comparison yourself and post your detailed experiences here?  That's what I usually do, as I find that I have preferences for music and movie sonic presentation that others may not share, even if they demo'd the exact same gear in the exact same room.

Then others can take it or leave it, as far as the value of the comparisons I do and post.

I will make one possibly relevant observation for the 626R's and the Maggies (I've heard the 1.6R's).  Both of them are relatively limited in their ability to hit large dynamic peaks when already playing at a loud level.  Simple a matter of not enough air moving ability.  For specifically a HT setup, I know that the RM40's and RM30's would be a better choice, simply for the ability to play louder with much less distortion and without approaching the maximum volume the speaker is capable of.

The bigger VMPS speakers simply have greater dynamic overhead than either the 1.6R's or the 626R's.  So, I would recommend forgetting the 626R's and go for something that would be an actual step up, the RM30's or RM40's.