or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Definitive Technology speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Definitive Technology speakers - Page 3

post #31 of 66
The OP's receiver does 120 watts per channel, enough to drive the Maggies and the center. For $2,500, you could do a system consisting of 1.6s (L,R) and the center channel CC3. Then you can add a REL sub and wing wall Maggies as desired. We had a local dealer that had a room around 16 by 20 where these same speakers were used with a Sony SXRD and a Pioneer Elite receiver. He would show great concert DVDs and the sound quality was superb. I recently got my brother to buy a pair of 1.6s on my recommendation and he uses a Denon 5800 receiver which works very well and has a plasma screen between the speakers and Maggie wing walls on the side. Again, great sound quality and the room is around 15 by 20 feet so not too far off. Be careful with the tile floor, that is really bad for sound. You should factor in some rugs. One silver lining however is the tile can be good for anchoring a nice equipment stand. Also, do not skimp on speaker cable and interconnect, they make a difference. PM me if you need recommendations. http://reviews.cnet.com/av-receivers...tag=mncol;rnav
post #32 of 66
Yup, what AF said. MAGGIES RULE!!!!
post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
Yup, what AF said. MAGGIES RULE!!!!

I'm glad you agree.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
The Maggie 1.6s have tremendous dynamic range with the exception of a slightly limited low end below 40hz.

The Maggies have below-average dynamic range. A Revel has tremendous dynamic range. Your notion of "tremendous dynamic range" has obviously been messed up by listening to too many LPs.

And we're not talking low bass either, nor should we since 50 percent of the total power in a typical recording lies below 200 Hz, which is not even mid-bass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Have you heard the Maggie HT system?

I have, and they're just not good. Even the Maggie reps who had set it up admitted that dynamic range was not their forte. And the reason is simple: the physics of the Maggie transducers limit their dynamic range.

--Andre
post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
The Maggies have below-average dynamic range. A Revel has tremendous dynamic range. Your notion of "tremendous dynamic range" has obviously been messed up by listening to too many LPs. And we're not talking low bass either, nor should we since 50 percent of the total power in a typical recording lies below 200 Hz, which is not even mid-bass. I have, and they're just not good. Even the Maggie reps who had set it up admitted that dynamic range was not their forte. And the reason is simple: the physics of the Maggie transducers limit their dynamic range. --Andre
You must have had a very poorly setup Maggie home theater system. The ones I have heard have been spectacular. Even Harry Pearson, a bit of a film fan, uses Maggies in both his surround and HT. In fact Harry Pearson and I have talked about what a great deal the 1.6s are in terms of bang for the buck. Jonathan Valin of TAS says in the latest issue that they challenge speakers far above their price point. Your comments about the dynamic range of Maggies are simply not true Andre but like our other audio discussions I can't change your mind and I don't desire to waste any more time trying to. Good day sir. You also have to remember, even with your flawed logic/experience/views above that dynamic range is one aspect of sound reproduction. Imaging, timbre, resolution, quickness, durability are just a few other factors that lead to long-term enjoyment of audio. My impression is that the OP wanted to have both functions of music listening and movie watching.
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Barry Diament, the mastering engineer who worked for Atlantic Records, uses Maggies to master albums for his new SoundKeeper label. He has written much on the special qualities of the Maggie line and the myth that its dynamic range is limited.

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/studio.htm

Perhaps equally important, the Maggie 1.6s are named as one of the best bargains in high end audio in The Absolute Sound's November Buying Guide (which I got this past weekend at the Rocky Mountain audio show, even before release date).

Dude, you need to learn how to construct a logical argument.

First of all, Diament says nothing about the DR of either the 1.6 or the 3.6 that he actually uses. He just says that he thinks it's revealing of what's on the recording. That page is basically audio pr0n.

Second, he uses 3.6s, and I'm not sure how you're going to relate that to the 1.6.

Third, the 1.6s being named a bargain by a raggy audio magazine does not contradict the fact that Maggies have limited dynamic range, and poor bass, not to mention poor dispersion at higher frequencies.

Fourth, I'm really happy that you got a copy of the latest TAS even before the release date while attending RMAF.

--Andre
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Your comments about the dynamic range of Maggies are simply not true Andre but like our other audio discussions I can't change your mind and I don't desire to waste any more time trying to. Good day sir.

In other words, since I am not buying your usual appeals to authority which come in the form of anecdotes, name-dropping, and favorable-sounding weblinks, instead of trying to discuss the points in a logical manner with appropriate technical information, you're going to step out of the discussion.

BTW, the Maggie HT demo was set up by Magnepan themselves. It was not badly setup for what it was, but you could easily hear the limits of their speakers.

--Andre
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
Dude, you need to learn how to construct a logical argument. First of all, Diament says nothing about the DR of either the 1.6 or the 3.6 that he actually uses. He just says that he thinks it's revealing of what's on the recording. That page is basically audio pr0n. Second, he uses 3.6s, and I'm not sure how you're going to relate that to the 1.6. Third, the 1.6s being named a bargain by a raggy audio magazine does not contradict the fact that Maggies have limited dynamic range, and poor bass, not to mention poor dispersion at higher frequencies. Fourth, I'm really happy that you got a copy of the latest TAS even before the release date while attending RMAF. --Andre
I know Barry very well and he finds the 1.6s have excellent dynamic range and he often discusses the excellent dynamic range of the 3.6s on music sites. The 1.6s and 3.6s use the same technology and have a similar sound but the highs are more fleshed out with the full ribbon on the 3.6s. However, Valin and others believe the 1.6 is a more cohesive speaker. I think he may be right although I really like the 3.6s. Dynamic range is the range of sound from softest to loudest and it encompasses two types - macro and micro. The 1.6s go down to 40hz and that captures most of what is happening musically but more importantly they really accurately capture what is going on in terms of detail (resolution) and timbre (tone color) of individual instruments. Being a panel speaker they excel at imaging as well like many mini-monitors do. I don't guess you have ever heard a well set-up pair of Maggies. They produce quite stunning sound. If they didn't then I would have chose another speaker as a long-term serious music lover.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Barry Diament, the mastering engineer who worked for Atlantic Records, uses Maggies to master albums for his new SoundKeeper label. He has written much on the special qualities of the Maggie line and the myth that its dynamic range is limited. http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/studio.htm
I'm sorry, but for me, suspending your audio interface in order to protect it from "performance damaging vibrations" is unbelievable bullshit.
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
I don't guess you have ever heard a well set-up pair of Maggies. They produce quite stunning sound. If they didn't then I would have chose another speaker as a long-term serious music lover.

Have you ever considered the idea that certain weaknesses of a speaker aren't important to you, but are to other people, so while you may find them unobjectionable, others may find them unacceptable? Just because I don't like something or hear something bad in something you like doesn't mean it was badly set up.

--Andre
post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
Have you ever considered the idea that certain weaknesses of a speaker aren't important to you, but are to other people, so while you may find them unobjectionable, others may find them unacceptable? Just because I don't like something or hear something bad in something you like doesn't mean it was badly set up.

That could be but they sound so good when done well, I assume there was a problem.

Barry doesn't find the dispersion pattern to be an issue.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...25&postcount=9
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by milosh View Post
I'm sorry, but for me, suspending your audio interface in order to protect it from "performance damaging vibrations" is unbelievable bullshit.
Stay tuned for some scientific evidence to the contrary. Vibration control is a hot topic and measurable. Nordost and Vertex gave a RMAF presentation where vibration control impact was scientifically measured by a military sonar specialist for the RAF.
post #43 of 66
^Early overview of the Nordost-Vertex-Acuity Products experiments: http://www.vertexaq.com/content/view/36/1/
post #44 of 66
That link says nothing about converters performing badly due to vibrations.
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
If you're happy with them, then it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. For me, DefTech's always been a me-too company, hopping on the latest audio trend, and executing it not as well. One has to admire their ability to outlast those that they have copied, though. --Andre
I don't actually own any Definitive speakers. I do like how their Mythos towers look in aluminium finish/glass base combination. Incidentally, the Mythos One towers in this finish seem to be on sale right now which makes me want to consider them for surround duty. I have not heard them yet but they certainly have a high WAF factor, if that is a concern. I'm not sure about other DefTech designs but I was under the impression that the Mythos Tower was a failry original design. I even saw an Energy tower recently that appeared to be inspired by the Mythos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Also, do not skimp on speaker cable and interconnect, they make a difference.
Not as much as some people believe but this is not an argument one can win. www.Monoprice.com probably has all you need as far as cables.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Definitive Technology speakers