Re: High End Speakers

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >I love my B&W'S.
> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
cranking
> > right along
> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
> > acoustic,
> > boston's, you name it
> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
>
> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I think
your
> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the first
> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will smoke
some
> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not all of
> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
>
> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently use a
> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't have
the
> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent speakers.
> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is a
TALL
> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie 3.6's and
> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of price,
> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not on par
> with the Maggie's.
>
> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase linear
and a few others.
The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging wasnt
their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would consider
price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair of
maggies, and revel...forget it
And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a grand
a pair
The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers costing
six times as much is a testament to their goodness. There are other speakers
with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just think the beemers do the best
job of being a cheap speaker
having just bought a house I am going to have to sit in the "cheap seats"
for awhile, I'm afraid
But I have promised myself a nice set of natilus or mayby some triangles
when the car gets paid for
>

[Severian]

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PMFHd.45436$Z%.13491@fe1.texas.rr.com...

> I just helped a friend put together a budget HT set-up and he bought four
of
> the $300 a pair Maggie's (don't remember the name), the matching center, a
> SVS sub matched with a NAD receiver. These little guys don't have the
high
> end response of their big brothers, but it is a very good and cohesive
> sound. I know of no other $300 speaker pair that even comes close. Had
the
> set the cross over up a bit to, but was able to blend it nicely. Just an
> unbelievable system for the money.
>
>

That sounds like an excellent setup. I agree, I've never heard anything even
close to $300 a pair that can hold a candle to the mini-maggies. Can't
recall their designation now either, they're smaller than the SMGa's.
Interesting that the sub blended well, that can sometimes be problematic
when mating dipoles to mono-pole subs, but I've done it and seen it done.
Takes some experimentation. But then again the mini's were designed to use
with a sub if memory serves.

You can really set up a true "audiophile" system with the mini-maggies for a
bargain price, and have that magical midrange that seperates midfi from high
end.

[Jack Dotson]

Snip...
>
> The smaller Maggies are among the very best deals, in sound quality for
> the
> buck, you can get. Granted, the things you mentioned hold true, deep bass
> lacking, not as dynamic as some, somewhat more difficult to place and
> drive,
> but the reward for these things is a smooth, liquid, seamless sound with
> incredible depth, space, and imaging that you have to spend a ton of bucks
> to rival. Planar speakers, either electrostats or planar magnetics like
> the
> Maggies, are very seductive. In more dynamic speakers, NHTs are a good
> deal
> as well, as are the others you've mentioned. It all depends on what floats
> your boat with respect to sound.
>
> I'm not particularly fond of B&W, at least in their mid-fi range. I find
> the
> tweeters, as I find so many speakers with hard domes and "rigid" drivers,
> to
> be fatiguing. Some perceive this as extra detail, to my ear it gets
> tiresome. I generally don't like rigid drivers, they break up somewhere,
> and
> although the tweeters break up supposedly outside the audible range, they
> generate subharmonics that are detectable with both instruments and ears.
> I
> attended an ALMA meeting that presented an excellent paper on driver
> self-noise that explained this phenomena well.
>
> But apparently plenty of people like the sound, or the idea. I know one
> high
> end designer who finally put a metal dome in his designs because marketing
> told him that to be taken seriously he needed it, sadly that drives a lot
> more aspects of design than it should.

I just helped a friend put together a budget HT set-up and he bought four of
the $300 a pair Maggie's (don't remember the name), the matching center, a
SVS sub matched with a NAD receiver. These little guys don't have the high
end response of their big brothers, but it is a very good and cohesive
sound. I know of no other $300 speaker pair that even comes close. Had the
set the cross over up a bit to, but was able to blend it nicely. Just an
unbelievable system for the money.

[Severian]

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S6EHd.45027$Z%.4382@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >>
> >> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >> >I love my B&W'S.
> >> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
> >> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
> >> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
> >> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
> >> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
> > cranking
> >> > right along
> >> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
> >> > acoustic,
> >> > boston's, you name it
> >> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
> >>
> >> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I think
> > your
> >> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the
first
> >> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will smoke
> > some
> >> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not all
> >> of
> >> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
> >>
> >> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently use
a
> >> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't
have
> > the
> >> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent speakers.
> >> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is a
> > TALL
> >> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie 3.6's
> >> and
> >> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of
price,
> >> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not on
> >> par
> >> with the Maggie's.
> >>
> >> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
>
>
> >> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase
linear
> > and a few others.
> > The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging
> > wasnt
> > their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
>
> What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they positioned?
> All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly hard
> speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty big
> (height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them are
now
> making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check out
> thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to
sound
> best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger one's
> and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and large
> and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't touch
> the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
> dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
> speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have
owned
> MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more.
Maggie's
> and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.
>
> > I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would consider
> > price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair of
> > maggies, and revel...forget it
>
> Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually order
and
> try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair.
They
> also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have many
> lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about
$1200
> (a steal).
>
> > And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a
> > grand
> > a pair
> > The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
> > costing
> > six times as much is a testament to their goodness.
>
> Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the Maggie's
> and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making this
> claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as much,
but
> not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may also
want
> to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.
>
> I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
> speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with you
> opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations. BTW,
the
> Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other good
> speakers.
>
> >There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just
> >think the beemers do the best
> > job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going to
> > have to sit in the "cheap seats"
> > for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of
natilus
> > or mayby some triangles
> > when the car gets paid for
>
> I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your
speaker
> of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a
little
> ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna
Acoustics'
> Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty serious
> competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it
necessary
> to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for the
> Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers. Tried
> to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do
agree
> your 602's are better than even their big towers.

The smaller Maggies are among the very best deals, in sound quality for the
buck, you can get. Granted, the things you mentioned hold true, deep bass
lacking, not as dynamic as some, somewhat more difficult to place and drive,
but the reward for these things is a smooth, liquid, seamless sound with
incredible depth, space, and imaging that you have to spend a ton of bucks
to rival. Planar speakers, either electrostats or planar magnetics like the
Maggies, are very seductive. In more dynamic speakers, NHTs are a good deal
as well, as are the others you've mentioned. It all depends on what floats
your boat with respect to sound.

I'm not particularly fond of B&W, at least in their mid-fi range. I find the
tweeters, as I find so many speakers with hard domes and "rigid" drivers, to
be fatiguing. Some perceive this as extra detail, to my ear it gets
tiresome. I generally don't like rigid drivers, they break up somewhere, and
although the tweeters break up supposedly outside the audible range, they
generate subharmonics that are detectable with both instruments and ears. I
attended an ALMA meeting that presented an excellent paper on driver
self-noise that explained this phenomena well.

But apparently plenty of people like the sound, or the idea. I know one high
end designer who finally put a metal dome in his designs because marketing
told him that to be taken seriously he needed it, sadly that drives a lot
more aspects of design than it should.

[Jack Dotson]

<steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >I love my B&W'S.
>> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
>> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
>> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
>> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
>> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
> cranking
>> > right along
>> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
>> > acoustic,
>> > boston's, you name it
>> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
>>
>> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I think
> your
>> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the first
>> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will smoke
> some
>> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not all
>> of
>> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
>>
>> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently use a
>> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't have
> the
>> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent speakers.
>> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is a
> TALL
>> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie 3.6's
>> and
>> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of price,
>> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not on
>> par
>> with the Maggie's.
>>
>> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.


>> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase linear
> and a few others.
> The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging
> wasnt
> their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.

What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they positioned?
All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly hard
speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty big
(height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them are now
making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check out
thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to sound
best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger one's
and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and large
and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't touch
the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have owned
MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more. Maggie's
and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.

> I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would consider
> price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair of
> maggies, and revel...forget it

Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually order and
try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair. They
also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have many
lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about $1200
(a steal).

> And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a
> grand
> a pair
> The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
> costing
> six times as much is a testament to their goodness.

Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the Maggie's
and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making this
claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as much, but
not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may also want
to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.

I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with you
opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations. BTW, the
Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other good
speakers.

>There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just
>think the beemers do the best
> job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going to
> have to sit in the "cheap seats"
> for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of natilus
> or mayby some triangles
> when the car gets paid for

I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your speaker
of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a little
ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna Acoustics'
Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty serious
competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it necessary
to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for the
Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers. Tried
to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do agree
your 602's are better than even their big towers.

Regards,
Jack

"Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S6EHd.45027$Z%.4382@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> >>
> >> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >> >I love my B&W'S.
> >> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
> >> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
> >> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
> >> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
> >> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
> > cranking
> >> > right along
> >> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
> >> > acoustic,
> >> > boston's, you name it
> >> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
> >>
> >> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I think
> > your
> >> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the
first
> >> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will smoke
> > some
> >> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not all
> >> of
> >> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
> >>
> >> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently use
a
> >> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't
have
> > the
> >> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent speakers.
> >> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is a
> > TALL
> >> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie 3.6's
> >> and
> >> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of
price,
> >> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not on
> >> par
> >> with the Maggie's.
> >>
> >> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
>
>
> >> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase
linear
> > and a few others.
> > The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging
> > wasnt
> > their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
>
> What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they positioned?
> All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly hard
> speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty big
> (height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them are
now
> making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check out
> thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to
sound
> best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger one's
> and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and large
> and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't touch
> the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
> dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
> speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have
owned
> MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more.
Maggie's
> and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.
>
> > I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would consider
> > price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair of
> > maggies, and revel...forget it
>
> Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually order
and
> try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair.
They
> also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have many
> lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about
$1200
> (a steal).
>
> > And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a
> > grand
> > a pair
> > The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
> > costing
> > six times as much is a testament to their goodness.
>
> Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the Maggie's
> and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making this
> claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as much,
but
> not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may also
want
> to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.
>
> I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
> speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with you
> opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations. BTW,
the
> Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other good
> speakers.
>
> >There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just
> >think the beemers do the best
> > job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going to
> > have to sit in the "cheap seats"
> > for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of
natilus
> > or mayby some triangles
> > when the car gets paid for
>
> I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your
speaker
> of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a
little
> ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna
Acoustics'
> Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty serious
> competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it
necessary
> to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for the
> Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers. Tried
> to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do
agree
> your 602's are better than even their big towers.
>
> Regards,
> Jack
> Very good points you make, but its not just me, the beemers are considered
a great value by almost everybody who objectivly looks at the situation.
They are not going to beat some of the speakers you mentioned but will give
them a run for the money and only the most critical listener will find much
difference.
The vienas were the cheapest bookshelf they make, cost twice as much as the
beemers I have but didnt sound twice as good.
I can understand your obvious bias towards electrostatics, I myself used to
have a pair of optimus with the linarium tweeter, which DID image quite
well, very good little speakers
Now I'm not saying that the beemers are better than some of the speakers you
mentioned, but in the imaging dept they stand up quite well to much higher
priced speakers, if you cant afford a speaker system that costs as much as a
good used car they are a good choice is all I'm saying. And for most
laypeople even the beemers are too high, a modest 602 system for HT, WITH
THE 2500 sub ran me 2500 or so, some thought I spent too much until they
heard it.
When I move up the food chain I will take your advice and audition the
speakers you mentioned again, but with the service I've gotten from the
beemers its going to be hard to pull me away from the brand
>

[Jack Dotson]

<steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:l%RLd.13602$BQ2.3207@bignews6.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:S6EHd.45027$Z%.4382@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> >>
>> >> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >I love my B&W'S.
>> >> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
>> >> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
>> >> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
>> >> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
>> >> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
>> > cranking
>> >> > right along
>> >> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
>> >> > acoustic,
>> >> > boston's, you name it
>> >> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
>> >>
>> >> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I think
>> > your
>> >> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the
> first
>> >> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will smoke
>> > some
>> >> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not
>> >> all
>> >> of
>> >> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
>> >>
>> >> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently
>> >> use
> a
>> >> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't
> have
>> > the
>> >> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent speakers.
>> >> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is
>> >> a
>> > TALL
>> >> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie 3.6's
>> >> and
>> >> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of
> price,
>> >> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not on
>> >> par
>> >> with the Maggie's.
>> >>
>> >> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
>>
>>
>> >> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase
> linear
>> > and a few others.
>> > The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging
>> > wasnt
>> > their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
>>
>> What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they positioned?
>> All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly
>> hard
>> speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty big
>> (height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them are
> now
>> making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check out
>> thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to
> sound
>> best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger
>> one's
>> and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and large
>> and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't
>> touch
>> the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
>> dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
>> speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have
> owned
>> MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more.
> Maggie's
>> and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.
>>
>> > I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would consider
>> > price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair of
>> > maggies, and revel...forget it
>>
>> Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually order
> and
>> try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair.
> They
>> also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have
>> many
>> lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about
> $1200
>> (a steal).
>>
>> > And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a
>> > grand
>> > a pair
>> > The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
>> > costing
>> > six times as much is a testament to their goodness.
>>
>> Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the
>> Maggie's
>> and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making this
>> claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as much,
> but
>> not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may also
> want
>> to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.
>>
>> I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
>> speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with you
>> opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations. BTW,
> the
>> Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other good
>> speakers.
>>
>> >There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just
>> >think the beemers do the best
>> > job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going to
>> > have to sit in the "cheap seats"
>> > for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of
> natilus
>> > or mayby some triangles
>> > when the car gets paid for
>>
>> I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your
> speaker
>> of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a
> little
>> ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna
> Acoustics'
>> Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty serious
>> competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it
> necessary
>> to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for
>> the
>> Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers.
>> Tried
>> to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do
> agree
>> your 602's are better than even their big towers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jack



>> Very good points you make, but its not just me, the beemers are
>> considered
> a great value by almost everybody who objectivly looks at the situation.
> They are not going to beat some of the speakers you mentioned but will
> give
> them a run for the money and only the most critical listener will find
> much
> difference.

These are not the speakers "I" mentioned, they are the one's you mentioned.
Start from the beginning of this post and read what you posted. I would
never have thought of trying to compare them to this lot, I know better.

> The vienas were the cheapest bookshelf they make, cost twice as much as
> the
> beemers I have but didnt sound twice as good.

Matter of opinion, many would strongly disagree.

> I can understand your obvious bias towards electrostatics, I myself used
> to
> have a pair of optimus with the linarium tweeter, which DID image quite
> well, very good little speakers

Maggie's are not "Electrostatics", they are a planer speaker. Big
difference between the two.

> Now I'm not saying that the beemers are better than some of the speakers
> you
> mentioned, but in the imaging dept they stand up quite well to much higher
> priced speakers, if you cant afford a speaker system that costs as much as
> a
> good used car they are a good choice is all I'm saying. And for most
> laypeople even the beemers are too high, a modest 602 system for HT, WITH
> THE 2500 sub ran me 2500 or so, some thought I spent too much until they
> heard it.

As stated previously, I also agree they are a good speaker for the money.
But, you did try and compare them to some seriously good speakers (You not
me) and I had to disagree, especially when you were trying to compare them
to Maggie's and not even mentioning the models. IMO Maggie's $300 speakers
will spank the 602's. Just my opinion of course and this is why I jumped in
to start with. Some on this group are just learing and asking questions and
you tend to make a post like your opinion is the gospel. For those looking
in this price range I still think they can do well looking at NHT, PSB, etc.
If they compare them to the speaker lines you originally mentioned, I truly
believe they aren't going to do that well.

> When I move up the food chain I will take your advice and audition the
> speakers you mentioned again, but with the service I've gotten from the
> beemers its going to be hard to pull me away from the brand

Please, you are the one who mentioned these speakers. I merely responded to
your claims. You have a very good pair of speakers for the money and are
obviously happy with them, and in the end that's all that matters. I don't
have a problem with this at all. I just countered whey "you" compared them
to some seriously outstanding speakers. I even told you before that I like
the B&W Nautilus line and use the HTM-2 as my center (Don't have room for
the Maggie MGGC-3). However, I've also listened to the top of the line B&W
Nautilus floor standers which do cost as much as a small car and IMO the
Maggie 3.6's at about 1/3 the price are better. Again my opinion. It's not
intent to get into a pissing contest, just want others on the net to realize
there are options.

[1shado1@sbcglobal.net]

Jack Dotson wrote:

>Maggie's are not "Electrostatics", they are a planer speaker*. Big
>difference between the two.

Another brave man trying to confuse Steve with FACTS. : ) Here we
go...

Jeff

"Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:QxEHd.1093$cZ1.670@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>
> "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:S6EHd.45027$Z%.4382@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > >>
> > >> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >> >I love my B&W'S.
> > >> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
> > >> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
> > >> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
> > >> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
> > >> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
> > > cranking
> > >> > right along
> > >> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
> > >> > acoustic,
> > >> > boston's, you name it
> > >> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
> > >>
> > >> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I
think
> > > your
> > >> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the
> first
> > >> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will
smoke
> > > some
> > >> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not
all
> > >> of
> > >> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
> > >>
> > >> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently
use
> a
> > >> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't
> have
> > > the
> > >> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent
speakers.
> > >> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned is
a
> > > TALL
> > >> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie
3.6's
> > >> and
> > >> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of
> price,
> > >> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not
on
> > >> par
> > >> with the Maggie's.
> > >>
> > >> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
> >
> >
> > >> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase
> linear
> > > and a few others.
> > > The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but imaging
> > > wasnt
> > > their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
> >
> > What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they positioned?
> > All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly
hard
> > speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty big
> > (height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them are
> now
> > making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check out
> > thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to
> sound
> > best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger
one's
> > and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and
large
> > and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't
touch
> > the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
> > dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
> > speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have
> owned
> > MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more.
> Maggie's
> > and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.
> >
> > > I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would
consider
> > > price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair
of
> > > maggies, and revel...forget it
> >
> > Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually order
> and
> > try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair.
> They
> > also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have
many
> > lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about
> $1200
> > (a steal).
> >
> > > And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for a
> > > grand
> > > a pair
> > > The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
> > > costing
> > > six times as much is a testament to their goodness.
> >
> > Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the
Maggie's
> > and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making this
> > claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as much,
> but
> > not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may also
> want
> > to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.
> >
> > I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
> > speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with you
> > opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations. BTW,
> the
> > Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other good
> > speakers.
> >
> > >There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I just
> > >think the beemers do the best
> > > job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going to
> > > have to sit in the "cheap seats"
> > > for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of
> natilus
> > > or mayby some triangles
> > > when the car gets paid for
> >
> > I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your
> speaker
> > of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a
> little
> > ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna
> Acoustics'
> > Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty
serious
> > competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it
> necessary
> > to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for
the
> > Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers.
Tried
> > to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do
> agree
> > your 602's are better than even their big towers.
>
> The smaller Maggies are among the very best deals, in sound quality for
the
> buck, you can get. Granted, the things you mentioned hold true, deep bass
> lacking, not as dynamic as some, somewhat more difficult to place and
drive,
> but the reward for these things is a smooth, liquid, seamless sound with
> incredible depth, space, and imaging that you have to spend a ton of bucks
> to rival. Planar speakers, either electrostats or planar magnetics like
the
> Maggies, are very seductive. In more dynamic speakers, NHTs are a good
deal
> as well, as are the others you've mentioned. It all depends on what floats
> your boat with respect to sound.
>
> I'm not particularly fond of B&W, at least in their mid-fi range. I find
the
> tweeters, as I find so many speakers with hard domes and "rigid" drivers,
to
> be fatiguing. Some perceive this as extra detail, to my ear it gets
> tiresome. I generally don't like rigid drivers, they break up somewhere,
and
> although the tweeters break up supposedly outside the audible range, they
> generate subharmonics that are detectable with both instruments and ears.
I
> attended an ALMA meeting that presented an excellent paper on driver
> self-noise that explained this phenomena well.
>
> But apparently plenty of people like the sound, or the idea. I know one
high
> end designer who finally put a metal dome in his designs because marketing
> told him that to be taken seriously he needed it, sadly that drives a lot
> more aspects of design than it should.
>
I agree about the metal dome tweeters, but the aluminum of the B&W'S isnt
nearly as bad as titanium tweeters, which I have been on a personal
vendetta against
Worst thing to ever happen to hi-fi
>

[Severian]

<steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:HOEPd.607$d%2.458@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Severian" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:QxEHd.1093$cZ1.670@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> >
> > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:S6EHd.45027$Z%.4382@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > >
> > > <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:gneHd.29254$tF.3957@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Jack Dotson" <jdotson@stx.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:XK2yd.56$yv2.46@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> <steve99@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > >> news:jl1yd.472$%3.156@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > > >> >I love my B&W'S.
> > > >> > The 602's I got from a friend, who bought some Axioms.
> > > >> > Hes crying now. They are holding up well.
> > > >> > I also have a pair of 602s2's (with the nautilus tweeter)
> > > >> > 3 and a 1/2 years and still sounding sweet.
> > > >> > And my ASW2500 1000 watt B&W sub is still the envy of my friends,
> > > > cranking
> > > >> > right along
> > > >> > I've listened to phase linears, maggies(magneplane) revel, vienna
> > > >> > acoustic,
> > > >> > boston's, you name it
> > > >> > I still havent found anything that images like my B&W's
> > > >>
> > > >> So your 602's image better than all Magnaplaner, Revel, etc.? I
> think
> > > > your
> > > >> putting out a little stink here. Even the lower end models of the
> > first
> > > >> three you mentioned are VERY good. Maggie's midrange 1.6's will
> smoke
> > > > some
> > > >> of the highest dollar speakers on the market, including most if not
> all
> > > >> of
> > > >> the Nautilus line, let alone a pair of 602's.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've owned allot of very good speakers over the years and currently
> use
> > a
> > > >> B&W HTM-2 as may center (paired with a set of 1.6's because I don't
> > have
> > > > the
> > > >> room for the big Maggie center) and agree they are excellent
> speakers.
> > > >> However, to say they image better than the big three you mentioned
is
> a
> > > > TALL
> > > >> order, especially the Maggie's when set-up properly. The Maggie
> 3.6's
> > > >> and
> > > >> 20.1's may well be among the very best speakers made regardless of
> > price,
> > > >> and Revel and VA also make some really killer speakers, but IMO not
> on
> > > >> par
> > > >> with the Maggie's.
> > > >>
> > > >> Just another opinion of course, other chip in if you wish.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> We have a store in this little hamlet that deals in Maggies, phase
> > linear
> > > > and a few others.
> > > > The ones I listened to were a bit large and sounded great, but
imaging
> > > > wasnt
> > > > their strong point, I've noticed this with electrostatics.
> > >
> > > What did he have the maggie's hooked up to and how were they
positioned?
> > > All of the Maggie's need a decent (powerful) amp as they are a fairly
> hard
> > > speaker to drive and like allot of current. Most of them are pretty
big
> > > (height and width wise, but only a couple of inches thick), but them
are
> > now
> > > making some small one's and guess what they cost, $300 a pair, check
out
> > > thier web site. They need to be positioned out from adjacent walls to
> > sound
> > > best. They also are pretty weak on deep bass, except for the bigger
> one's
> > > and these are their weaknesses. Imaging, acurracy and realism, and
> large
> > > and deep sondstage are where they excell. Even the best B&W's don't
> touch
> > > the Maggie's in these reagrds, IMO. Oh yeah, their also not the most
> > > dynamic speaker in the world. There are comprimises on every type of
> > > speaker, but I've been into this hobby for about 30 years now and have
> > owned
> > > MANY speakers (including various B&W's) and listened to many more.
> > Maggie's
> > > and 602's have little in common other then both being speakers.
> > >
> > > > I'm sorry if I didnt make myself clear but I assumed you would
> consider
> > > > price, and you can buy six pairs of 602-s2's for the price of a pair
> of
> > > > maggies, and revel...forget it
> > >
> > > Magnaplaner offer's and entry level speaker that you can actually
order
> > and
> > > try at home for 30 days or so (risk free) which are only $500 a pair.
> > They
> > > also make some smaller speakers that are only $300 a pair. They have
> many
> > > lines up to and including the 3.6's. 1.6's can be had used for about
> > $1200
> > > (a steal).
> > >
> > > > And the cdm-1 is an even better bargain with a real wood cabinet for
a
> > > > grand
> > > > a pair
> > > > The fact that a speaker as cheap as the 602 is compaired to speakers
> > > > costing
> > > > six times as much is a testament to their goodness.
> > >
> > > Your the one who's comparing them and saying their as good as the
> Maggie's
> > > and speakers costing "six times as much". I see anyone else making
this
> > > claim. They may very well best some speakers costing six times as
much,
> > but
> > > not the one's you've mentioned. BTW, in their price range you may
also
> > want
> > > to take a look at NHT, PSB, Paradigm, etc.
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to bust on on your speakers. The 602's are a very good
> > > speakers, but you've replied to people looking for suggestions with
you
> > > opinon and I respectfully have to disagree with your observations.
BTW,
> > the
> > > Maggie 12's are in the price range of the CDM-1's as are many other
good
> > > speakers.
> > >
> > > >There are other speakers with a great cost to benefit ratio, but I
just
> > > >think the beemers do the best
> > > > job of being a cheap speaker having just bought a house I am going
to
> > > > have to sit in the "cheap seats"
> > > > for awhile, I'm afraid. But I have promised myself a nice set of
> > natilus
> > > > or mayby some triangles
> > > > when the car gets paid for
> > >
> > > I can dig that, been there many times myself. If the 602's are your
> > speaker
> > > of choice for what you can afford, cool. But, I do think you went a
> > little
> > > ovet the top trying to tell people they imaged better then Vienna
> > Acoustics'
> > > Maggie's, Boston's, Revel's, etc. You've put them in some pretty
> serious
> > > competition. These people were looking for opinion's so I felt it
> > necessary
> > > to let them know many of us disagree with your assessment. Except for
> the
> > > Axiom's. I actaully ordered a set of their top of the line towers.
> Tried
> > > to let them break in for a while, but they just didn't cut it and I do
> > agree
> > > your 602's are better than even their big towers.
> >
> > The smaller Maggies are among the very best deals, in sound quality for
> the
> > buck, you can get. Granted, the things you mentioned hold true, deep
bass
> > lacking, not as dynamic as some, somewhat more difficult to place and
> drive,
> > but the reward for these things is a smooth, liquid, seamless sound with
> > incredible depth, space, and imaging that you have to spend a ton of
bucks
> > to rival. Planar speakers, either electrostats or planar magnetics like
> the
> > Maggies, are very seductive. In more dynamic speakers, NHTs are a good
> deal
> > as well, as are the others you've mentioned. It all depends on what
floats
> > your boat with respect to sound.
> >
> > I'm not particularly fond of B&W, at least in their mid-fi range. I find
> the
> > tweeters, as I find so many speakers with hard domes and "rigid"
drivers,
> to
> > be fatiguing. Some perceive this as extra detail, to my ear it gets
> > tiresome. I generally don't like rigid drivers, they break up somewhere,
> and
> > although the tweeters break up supposedly outside the audible range,
they
> > generate subharmonics that are detectable with both instruments and
ears.
> I
> > attended an ALMA meeting that presented an excellent paper on driver
> > self-noise that explained this phenomena well.
> >
> > But apparently plenty of people like the sound, or the idea. I know one
> high
> > end designer who finally put a metal dome in his designs because
marketing
> > told him that to be taken seriously he needed it, sadly that drives a
lot
> > more aspects of design than it should.
> >
> I agree about the metal dome tweeters, but the aluminum of the B&W'S isnt
> nearly as bad as titanium tweeters, which I have been on a personal
> vendetta against
> Worst thing to ever happen to hi-fi

Well, I'd have to agree with you about that. However, if you want to hear
something really really horrid listen to one of the older Focal inverted
dome tweeters made out of fiberglass...yowza they were ear piercers.

[dochuff]

It may be out of your budget, but check out www.huffloudspeaker.com

Exotic loudspeakers you will not find in stores. Spend some time researching
before you buy speakers.

Some say this is the most important component in a sound sytem.

J. Huff (yes, although he is my brother, I'm not an owner. I can't afford
them.)