[medium jim]

Today I listened to my MG2.5r's on both SS and Tubes.  The SS amp is a BGW 500D which is a very solid amp that is a bit over 400wpc in 4ohm and the Tube side was a pair of Marantz Model 9's that are 70wpc in UL.  The preamp was a McIntosh MX110 (which is a tube preamp) and a Ah! Tjoeb CDP (also tubed), and a pair of B&W subs.

The Marantz's easily drive the 2.5's well into the mid to high 90db range in the listening position and had enough headroom to handle transient peaks.  No doubt the subs running the bottom 2 octaves helps. 

The BGW will allow you to go as loud as the Maggie's can handle, easily over 100db.

While the SS amp at will allow for greater spl's, it was less articulate and the speakers/panels were much more present and directional and you could feel the energy. It just seemed too sterile.

The tubes were more laid back, but the music was heavier and thick and the speakers/panels disappear in a wonderful holographic soundstage that is very euphoric, everything just seems sweeter.  There was more detail and the notes had better decay and harmonics. 

I played Steely Dan, Pretzel Logic, Katy Lied and Aja as the source material. 

It may not be a really fair A/B as the Marantz's are far superior amps to the BGW.  However, I had a Bryston 4b Sst2 about 4 years ago that I bought into as many said for Maggie's you need a lot of current and wattage.  I had 1.6's back then and pretty much had the same impressions, although the Bryston was a wonderful amp and was much more detailed than the BGW. 

Jim

[jimdgoulding]

I wonder if the Jolida "Fusion" tube monoblocks rated at 200w at 8 ohms would be a good match for larger Maggies?

[medium jim]

I wonder if the Jolida "Fusion" tube monoblocks rated at 200w at 8 ohms would be a good match for larger Maggies?

I would think they would kick butt with larger Maggies! However, I had a Jolida 502 that was 60wpc and my old 1.6's brought them to their knees even with subs handling the grunt work.  I sold the Jolida when I had an opportunity to get the Marantz's and pay for them on payments.  The Marantz's were more than enough for the 1.6's...yet I still wasn't satisfied and sold the 1.6's and went on a several year speaker journey and ended the chase when I got the 2.5's.  The 2.5's are the same size as the IIIA's, but are 2 way, or 5'10" tall and are said to be only 83db efficient, yet they're easier to drive than the 1.6's. I suspect that my 2.5's are closer to 86db, maybe do in part to the x/o's being upgraded to 2.6 specs.

Most of the newer Maggies are around 87db efficient. 

The key to anyGood/Great tube amp are the transformers, unless you go with OTL.   

Jim

[josh358]

While it's a bit elaborate, I think the best way to go is to bi amp, that way you can get the best of both worlds. Then do what Satie did and put a big mother pro amp on the bass, they're cheap, they sound great in that frequency range, and they'll reduce dynamic limitations. Ultimately, I'm going to tri amp and put my Emotiva down there, though for setup and room positioning I think I'll stick with the single amp -- it being easier to move the speakers around that way. Still haven't decided what I'll put on the mids and highs.

[rollo]

  Unless one has the means to afford a high powered tune amp. [ 200W min.] stick with SS. Maggies love current. If you hear a bryston 28B or big Plinius amp with your Maggies you will understand why SS. If you use say an older Audio research DR 250 [ 240W/ch ] you will understand why tubes. No better just different. There are tradeoffs no matter what we choose. Which ones are important ?? Only you can answer that. Have fun trying.

charles

[medium jim]

Charles:

I respectfully disagree, you don't need 200 watts of tube power, I would think in the range of 100 without subs, or around 75 with. Heck, much of the time I run in triode which is only 40 and can get plenty loud and without and hints of compression or other tell take signs of running out of gas.

Jim

[SteveFord]

I'm using both tubes and SS with good results.
Big VTL monoblocks for the big speakers, a SS Harman Kardon Citation (resurrected by AVNerdguy) for the MMGs. 

On the subject of tubes, I've become a fan of tube buffers of late - the ones from Yaqin with NOS RCA tubes is a really good cominbation.  Much more betterer than the Musical Fidelity upgraded clone I tried - that just sounded warm, the Yaqin has great detail retrieval and astonishing dynamics. 

[satie]

Jim

This is very much a matter of preference. If you want the higher SPL, then you need more power. and/or you need subs.

A 3.x or a 2.x ribbon will do well being biamped so that the bass has the power and the top have the requisite lower power but highly refined amp. I would be first to admit that most affordable high power amps will not impress you with their imaging, great natural tone, rich textures and air, that is because that is what you lose when you cut corners on parts quality to produce more power at the target price. But for the listener, SPL is part of the sound quality - though we tend to speak of it as a separate critter.  Where it places on your list of SQ priorities is very much a personal issue and depends on your music preference and your experience of music along with your listening habits.

Some folks use volume to bring out detail that they would otherwise miss, some use overall volume to compensate for a lack of bass extension and they raise it till there is sufficient bass content. Others use volume to obtain a stronger sense of dynamics.

[medium jim]

Satie:

That is why I started this post, to be informational, not a bias towards one or the other.  However, the detail that emanates from quality tube amplification allows for more detail and resolution at lower spl's and still can achieve near live concert volume. 

It is totally personal preference, however, several years ago, to merely mention the use of tubes with Maggie's would get one flogged by public opinion. 

Jim

[ajzepp]

This is why I use (and love) a hybrid amp 

[J. Royce Baron]

Jim

This is very much a matter of preference. If you want the higher SPL, then you need more power. and/or you need subs.

A 3.x or a 2.x ribbon will do well being biamped so that the bass has the power and the top have the requisite lower power but highly refined amp. I would be first to admit that most affordable high power amps will not impress you with their imaging, great natural tone, rich textures and air, that is because that is what you lose when you cut corners on parts quality to produce more power at the target price. But for the listener, SPL is part of the sound quality - though we tend to speak of it as a separate critter.  Where it places on your list of SQ priorities is very much a personal issue and depends on your music preference and your experience of music along with your listening habits.

Some folks use volume to bring out detail that they would otherwise miss, some use overall volume to compensate for a lack of bass extension and they raise it till there is sufficient bass content. Others use volume to obtain a stronger sense of dynamics.

I like this post.

[Maggie May]

  The 2.5's are the same size as the IIIA's, but are 2 way, or 5'10" tall and are said to be only 83db efficient, yet they're easier to drive than the 1.6's. I suspect that my 2.5's are closer to 86db, maybe do in part to the x/o's being upgraded to 2.6 specs.

Most of the newer Maggies are around 87db efficient. 

Hi:

First - I am a new member having found my way here after this site was recommended by a member at Canuck Audio Mart. I've been living with Maggies since the mid 80's.

Maggies are in fact low efficiency speakers. As they generally present a 4 ohm load to the amp, 2.83 volts represents 2 watts so on a watt per watt basis they are more in the 83-84db range plus Magneplanar specifies efficiency at 600hz rather than the more standard 1khz. Most of the current speakers are tuned to have higher ouput in that range to offset dipole cancellation. But being both dipoles and line source speakers they are subjectively more efficient than the specs suggest. Boxes speakers loose half their output in the box. A line source sound output drops at linear rate. A lot of box speaker are more like a point source and loudness drops with the square of distance from the sound source with a point source.

Still many listeners report maggies need more power and sound quieter at a given volume setting than box speakers with similar efficiency specs.

None of this makes a difference regarding ss versus tubes. Personally I use SS and once used a PS Audio 2Cplus amp that was rated at 70watts a channel but had superb current output abilities. It was a fine match for the Mg1bs I paired it with.

 Ralph

[SteveFord]

The civilized man's campfire.
No mosquitos, too.

[OldFaithful]

One simple solution is to run a ss amp with a tube pre -

[medium jim]

One simple solution is to run a ss amp with a tube pre -

No, not really....

Jim

[TONEPUB]

I've yet to hear a low (under 100 watt) tube amp push the magnepans to anything realistic.  I've had good luck with the ARC REF 150 (could still use more juice though) and the Carver Cherry 180's, but have heard them with the ARC REF 610T's and that was probably the best, albeit rather expensive solution.  The Manley 250's I had in for review for a while also did a nice job.

[medium jim]

TONEPUB:

Whilst I'm employing 2 subs to handle the bottom 2 octaves (I would use them no matter), I have no problem driving my MG 2.5R's with my Marantz Model 9's that are rated at 70watts (more like 80 in the real world) and often flip into Triode which is only 40.  I've tried various SS amps and always go back to the Marantz's.

I have no problems fleshing out all the detail, nuances, the music has more than ample weight and dimension and the best of it all is the incredible soundstage that tubes provide.

Sure, a purist who doesn't use subs will want more power to get palpable bass, with subs (which are designed for bass), you can allow the amp(s) to feed the maggies for what they do best, mid bass to the highs and without strain.

There is no one or right way to feed maggies, only personal preferences and what ultimately sounds the best for the individual listener!

Jim

[Hasse]

I've yet to hear a low (under 100 watt) tube amp push the magnepans to anything realistic.  I've had good luck with the ARC REF 150 (could still use more juice though) and the Carver Cherry 180's, but have heard them with the ARC REF 610T's and that was probably the best, albeit rather expensive solution.  The Manley 250's I had in for review for a while also did a nice job.

Have you tried the REF150 on the 3.7 (3.6)? I´m curious whether it has enough power to make the 3-series sing.

[ajzepp]

Just as an FYI, there is a Butler 2250 available in the trading post forum...will make your Maggies sing.

[kevin360]

Just as an FYI, there is a Butler 2250 available in the trading post forum...will make your Maggies sing.

I imagine it would make Maggies sing very nicely. It's a lot like a Maggie in that it's a no-BS audio appliance. Butler didn't spend your money on a fancy faceplate, etc., so this amp is quite a value when purchased new (most high end amps really aren't). It's an interesting design that I've always wanted to hear. Another one I find intriguing is the A100 - think its storage tanks are big enough (2,000,000mF)?

In all honesty, I understand the drive some people have to experiment with different amplifiers. Otherwise, how does one really know? Different amps do interact differently with our speakers as a consequence of their differing designs. I've found, however, that some very different designs can sound an awfully lot alike. Of course, the answer doesn't spoil the fun of seeking it, and it can only be expressed as a tentative conclusion based upon an exceedingly limited sample of designs. Thus, the truly curious is pushed to expand the experiment - buy a different amp. Ain't it fun?