Maybe there's not much difference in price but these are complete polar opposites in many respects. You need to tell us much more about your situation than just that you are interested in these two speakers.
Emma Who?
Unregistered guest
Posted on
There is no speaker that even comes close to comparing with the Maggies up to and including the $1,000.00 price range.
Maggie Who?
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Well there's certainly no speaker under $1000 with less bass output than the Maggies, if that's what you meant by no comparison.
I owned the MG12's and sold them as they were not versatile nor accurate enough for me. They are however seductive enough to have me still missing them. Like Jan said I need more info to know if I can respond in an informative way.
I myself am a maggie owner, and have YET to find a speaker that can compare with them. They throw a huge, seductive soundstage, and image all the way to the back wall. It is like sitting in the center row, in the center of that row, facing the stage, at your favorite concert.
Their treble is sweet and involving, the midrange is soo seductive you can hear details like saliva in the mouths of well recorded vocalists, and the bass is NOT as bad as everybody will tell you it is. You just need space to bring it out. They will go as low as a good tower, but the impact will be missing UNLESS you can feed them a TON of power. If you can feed them a good 200 watts or more of 4ohm, high current power a channel, you will have bass that makes you think you have a small high quality subwoofer hidden in your room. Maggies of that size (all sizes really) require a decent amount of power to bring out the bass and keep the dynamics alive.
You will hear things in your recordings that no other speakers can reproduce (eccept speakers on par with paradigm reference and signature, martinlogan, etc, etc) and will draw you in and you will forget your surroundings, bringing you into that concert hall.
They aren't for everybody, but I am a planar / electrostatic person, and can think of no other speaker for my taste in music, in that price range, that can let me just sit down, pop in a CD, and be transported to paradise.
If you listen to jazz music, well recorded pop, acoustic pop, opera, chamber music, classical, some R&B, basically anything, you might find that these are your speakers.
However, if you like heavy metal, rap, hip-hop, or anything else like that, you might find yourself better suited to a dynamic speaker.
I do wish people would stop listening for the sound of "saliva". It used to be subways cars under Carnegie Hall; now it has progressed to "saliva". Quite honestly, what do either have to do with music?
On my Diana Krall "Love Scene's" CD, you can hear the saliva in her mouth when she is singing on certain tracks, such as "I Miss You So," and "Gentle Rain." The quality of the recording is outstanding. You can hear all kinds of little details such as the saliva, the dampers and peddles creaking in her piano, fingers sliding on frets, and other little details like that.
The saliva isnt something that I listen for, it was just the first thing that jumped into my head, thats all.
Just pointing out how keen these speakers are with detail resolution.
I completely agree Jan. I hear less of those details with my new CD player than I did with my NAD C542 but it is infinitely more musical. It's not about the individual details it's about how they come together as music and how that experience is reproduced. I have rarely been privy to the sound of saliva at a live event and that is my reference.
Gavin, I do have to agree that the Maggies are seductive in a way that no other speaker that I know of are. My primary problems with them were that they didn't reproduce all genres of music with nearly equal aplomb and they are not particularly accurate. I really enjoyed how they presented classical and acoustic jazz and that is what I listen to primarily. However, I do have a few hundred other titles which vary from celtic to heavy metal to funk to Japanese drumming and the Maggies simply couldn't do most of these others as well as dynamic speakers.
As I've said here on this forum before my break with the Maggies happened the day after I attended a Cassandra Wilson concert. I was auditioning the Maggie 1.6 vs the Vandersteen 2ce using a couple of Cassandra cd's. At first I liked the more dynamic and alive sound of the Maggies but something was immediately apparent that ended my relationship with Maggie. I recognized Cassandra in the Vandy's. It was as though I was hearing the concert again, her voice was right. Not so with the Maggies, her voice was way off. I then listened to other cd's and had much the same experience. I wound up going back to the Studio 40's not because I think they are the best speaker out there, but because they are versatile and more accurate than some at their price.
On my Diana Krall "Love Scene's" CD, you can hear the saliva in her mouth when she is singing on certain tracks, such as "I Miss You So," and "Gentle Rain." The quality of the recording is outstanding. You can hear all kinds of little details such as the saliva, the dampers and peddles creaking in her piano, fingers sliding on frets, and other little details like that.
The saliva isnt something that I listen for, it was just the first thing that jumped into my head, thats all.
Just pointing out how keen these speakers are with detail resolution.
as you know I am a VERY big proponent of Paradigm studio (love the 20's) and signature (oh those s2's... best monitors Ive ever heard... love to own a pair eventually)
I have never really had a chance to do a full on comparison because the paridigms that I myself own are the atoms, for casual listening purposes, and they are a far cry from the studio and sig. series speakers.
I'll have to do a comparison sometime myself in the comming months...far too busy right now. It surprises me that you think that the maggies aren't particularly accurate. However... we agree on pretty much everything else related to dynamic speakers (note I didn't say MartinLogan electrostatics... hee hee) that warrents me doing a side by side with the studios. My taste in music is fairly eclectic as well, but when I want to really listen, it is usually jazz, acoustic pop, celtic, new age (loreena mckennitt), or instrumental R&B (Boney James) that I grab
It is funny you mentioned Cassandra Wilson, because I saw her this summer at my local jazz festival. I primarily went for her, Bela Fleck, Chris Botti, Boney James, and Al Jarreau. There were numerous other performers as well, but cant remember them right now
I can't help it that I have really keen hearing, and listen for details like that in my recordings. I will analyze my recordings while listening to them. Plus, I also have an electrostatic headset, I know a few people here know that. With a headset that has resoultion that high, it is impossible not to hear details like that, and then you look for them in your recordings when shopping for speakers.
That is the reason why when buying speakers for myself, I prefer to look for brands such as: Thiel, MartinLogan, Magnepan, and Paradigm (signature and studio)
All the brands that I threw out have a unique sound to them, and I like each and every one of them. They can reproduce the subtle details that I love in my music without being overbearing.
Art has convinced me to do a side by side with my maggies and paradigm studios as mentioned above.
If I could afford it I would probably have a pair of Maggies that I could break out every now and again for a listen. I have the perfect sub for them with the Era. My friend who owns the local (Eugene, Or.) Magnepan store uses it with his 3.6's.
Hey Gavin, what really is accuracy within our budgets? We are just choosing our favorite colors..lol !!!
There are a few things both speakers have in common;
Both require moderate sized rooms for full performance.
Both feature poor off-axis response - meaning you will need to be right in the sweet spot
Both require some work to position. No 'drop and plop" here. The Maggies will require a bit more attention.
Both like powerful amplifiers. Although if in a smaller room or if you listen at moderate levels - The Lsi can be driven with a low power amplifier (not quite an SET, but a feather weight chip amp or tube).
Sound is where the similarities end. I will not blather on about my favorites or preferences. I will only offer this to you; The Maggie's can reproduce an organic sense of an instrument, particularily those commonly found in contemporary jazz. They are free of box colorations so when driven properly - effortless typically comes to mind. Mind however, this product is not the most versitile.
The LSi is the more versitile product. While its speciality is jazz, they can handle any type of music you throw at them. Power handeling may be a tad greater, as will dynamics. Expect the classic Polk mid-range bloom (ala, boost in the low mid-range on the X-over).
While I won't (usually) argue about the resolving power of electrostatic headphones, using them as a reference for what you try to retrieve with a pair of speakers is ... well, ... specious at best. Almost any decent pair of headphones will out perform most speakers in detail retrieval simply due to the proximity which the headphone enjoys to your ear. No multiple reflections, over damped surfaces or room nodes to deal with gives the headphones a tremendous advantage in detail resolution.
However, as Art has pointed out, what is on a contemporary recording seldom has anything to do with what you hear at a live performance. And the reason is similar to why headphones will "out-detail" most speakers. So much of what is taken to be detail by so many audiophiles is not much more than the proximity of the performer's mouth (and subsequently saliva) to the recording capsule. When the performer is so closely mic'd as to be all but swallowing the electret, there must be sounds picked up that are unnatural when heard from an audience perspective. Additionally, when the performer is mere inches, at best, from the microphone there is no space to be captured other than what is between her molars. Pianos, guitars and virtually every instrument receives the same treatment in today's recording studio. This leaves an "ambient space" that must be created by the engineer, not one that was captured by the microphones. "Soundstage" and "image" are then inserted in the post production phase, not captured as the real event plays out.
Add to that the marketing of "high end audio" and there are too many speakers (and other devices) which will raise the frequency response just a hair across the presence/brightness region to instill in the equipment the ability to reproduce those "subtle" details that people are nowdays listening for. It is what sells many speakers despite the fact they may not be very musical performers. Detail has been so over hyped by the audio press and so misunderstood by the buying public that many speaker designers are merely responding to what sells and not what makes a speaker a neutral participant in the playback chain. As in politics, you have to win on the sales floor if you are to accomplish your agenda.
Yes, there are innumerable speakers which (with the help of a broad, low-Q rise in response between 2-7kHz) can reproduce what most modern recordings contain. All praise plus or minus three dB! However, when you choose a speaker based upon the presence of these "details", you may be doing not much more than responding to the marketing department's research.
I believe this is partially the reason for the current resurgence of interest in monoaural recordings. When the artifacts of soundstage and imaging are reduced to a small portion of what you listen to, the music alone comes to center stage (no pun intended). While I have nothing against chair squeaks and fingernails on piano keys, you will seldom find these details in abundance on a top flight mono recording. A listen to Segovia, Casals or Van Cliburn in mono will tell you all you need to know about a speaker in many areas.
My recent experience with Tim's Emma raised the question of just how much "detail" is relevant to producing the illusion of live performers in the room. The Alegria speaker is, by most estimations, somewhat shy on "detail". Yet the fact the speaker could often fool me into believing there were real musicians in the room is an issue I think more people should explore before making a buying decision. There is a sound to live music that has virtually nothing to do with saliva. The articulation and resolution of the Emma is outstanding though there is not much in the way of detail retrieval. And Tim's Ling presents such a degree of artistic nuance that it puts many much more expensive speakers to shame in this regard. When heard through the Ling inflections which alter your perception of the music spring to life as if the performer where there just for your pleasure. Emotions that result from a word going up slightly at the end of a phrase are clearly there to be heard through the Ling. The smallest catch that places the vocals or the drums just ever so slightly behind the rest of the musicians is magic when understood fully and will change what you feel and think when you are hearing them for the first time - every time. If understanding what the artist intended is important to you, there is more to it than listening for "details" which have nothing to do with the music.
didn't mean to make it sound like I use my headset as a reference, because I know that almost always, a decent pair of headphones will outperform a great pair of speakers in digging up subtle details for all the reasons you mentioned.
Nor did I wish to make the point all about headphones. The issue, as I see it, is more about what passes for "information" in 2006. While fingers on strings can bring a certain degree of "You Are There" and "this is such a good recording" detail to a recording, the problem in my estimation becomes one of being too there and having nowhere surrounding you. Nowhere that is, other than what the recording engineer chooses to insert. And, understand I'm not advocating all recordings be stripped to the bone. Effects have been added to recordings since the first echo/reverb unit came into the studio in the 1950's. Also I realize if you want to listen to a modern recording, the effects are there and cannot be dispensed with just because I find the sound of saliva a bit too intimate.
Let me ask you, Gavin, since you say you listen for these details when judging speakers; where do the "details" fit into the larger scheme of what a speaker accomplishes? What do these details say to you or do for you that is lacking when a speaker glosses over their existence? Do you have an example of a speaker you like which doesn't reproduce these sorts of details?