Transparency, coherence--you name it.

Large and power-hungry (but easy load).

I recently auditioned these, along with MANY other designs. These pure-ribbon Maggies eclipse EVERYTHING under $15,OOO, including Eggelston (sp?), Aerial, Thiel, Vienna, Quad, B&W, and Martin Logan. From the very first notes, I was transported to a live venue! I know that sounds cliche', but unlike the above-mentioned speakers (which are all capable of electrostatic speed, articulation, and soundstaging to varying degrees), the Magnepans launch a seamless, coherent, and LIFE-SIZED wave of sound that's not just "airy," but almost tangible. (Note that I avoided the now-hackneyed "palpa- ble presence.") As dynamic designs get more and more sophisticated, we are in a contemporary renaissance of speaker design. As I pointed out in my review of the 1.6, the French and Brits are quite impressive for the money--JM Labs, Triangle, Kef, Wharfedale, Naim, etc. (Haven't heard the Tannoys yet, but they should be definitely considered, based on the excellent reviews.) Sonus Faber has a "romantic" character, but lacks ultimate speed and resolution. Note: My other review (of the 1.6) got cut off at the end, where I started to say that Polk Audio somehow gets past the "golden ears" of the audio press with the same "spitty" or "reedy" tweeters year after year. (Do I smell payoffs here?) The 10s and 12s of the 80s, not to mention the SDAs, WERE great speakers for the price. Check E-Bay. The 3.6 does everything the 1.6 in a bigger (no pun intended) and better way, and the price differential is fully justified. The soundstage is wider, deeper, and more "holographic." Furthermore, they are smoother, and the ribbon tweeter resolves like nothing else on the planet--MUCH more sweet, extended and pure than the excellent Quads or upper-end Logans. Grand piano and upright bass on the Maggies was a jaw-dropping revelation. Even Willie Nelson was magical and spooky-real. (And I don't even LIKE Willie Nelson!) In summary, these are an absolute STEAL in the audiophile world! I'm getting a pair soon. Check these out, and tell 'em Mikey sent ya.

Similar Products Used:

Nothing compares!

Sound. I like the way the reproduce music. It is very differnt but equally pleasing then my vandersteen 3A signatures. (more pleasure from 3.6rs than 3a sig) Bass is accurate w/ theta amp. Move them around and you will find a sub isn't needed. For movies, like most x.1 systems, a sub could be a thriller.

See above and add what ever else ales you. see exoticaudio.org page 30

I had to beg my wife, build a wall seperating my kids from putting their fingers through the cloth, move all my gear to a diffrent wall, spend five days consec with measuring tape for distances, also break them in for 2 weeks 24hours a day. I Put up studio foam on left and right walls, buy an expensive Theta Dreadnaught (200x3,100x4) pair it w/ the Lexicon Mc12 balanced. I bought after market stands that cost 350$ from the sound anchor guy. WHY? WHY? THE SOUND of the maggies is incrediable. See: exoticaudio.org page 30

Similar Products Used:

Vandersteen 3a sig-accurate and pleasurable B&W naut 800, 802 (nice but too revealing of source that I can't listen for too long) Dynaaudio (can you say boomy?) Paradigm sudio ref (what $2300 buys

see review below

see review below

Part Two of review below … To make a long story short even though I played endlessly with placement (tweeter side in-out, speakers close together- far apart and various degrees of toe in) I still heard thin. Finally, a day or two before I finished the audition I figured what the heck and shoved them back two feet and damn, they got good. Not only did they now have bass but the sound stage actually improved. In the new spot there were times the 3.6s were absolutely spectacular like when I played anything with a piano. The tonal quality of voices was amazing, which to no surprise, had zero boxiness. Classical was fantastic. The sound stage was as wide as a symphony. And yes, the speakers disappeared. Their ability to place sounds beyond the left and right speakers is the best I have ever heard by a wide margin. And now the "buts". Even though the bass finally improved when I moved them closer to the rear wall, in my very large listening room they were still, a little thin sounding. I want to emphasize that this was primarily dependent on my large room (about 8000 cubic feet). The same 3.6s playing at Audio Connection had very good base. The sound stage that was so great on classical was not so impressive on sparser folk and acoustic music. The sound stage often seemed a bit too big and imaging within the sound stage sometimes was fuzzy or even plain wrong. Ok, yes again, this is partly my room. If I treated the wall behind the speakers I believe the imaging would have improved significantly but even in well treated showrooms I never found the imaging to be as good as with point source speakers. Just two more things. One, I was outright blown away with how loud the 3.6s could play with absolutely no signs of stress. But the dynamics never seemed quite right to me. If I played a CD so the vocals seemed like they were at a realistic level everything else seemed bit too soft. If I got the instruments up to a realistic level vocals seemed unrealistically loud. Last, the intangible. With the 3.6s I never could just relax and enjoy the music. Sure I was listening more to the speakers than the music because they were new to my room and I was auditioning them, but I have been able to let the critical listening mode drift away, even at a dealer, if the speakers in question lets the music play through. Maybe it''s the dipole nature of the beast, and my live big

... Part Two: even though I played endlessly with placement I still heard thin. Finally, I figured what the heck and shoved them back two feet and damn, they got good. Not only did they have bass but the sound stage actually improved. In the new spot there were times the 3.6s were absolutely spectacular like when I played anything with a piano. The tonal quality of voices was amazing, which to no surprise, had zero boxiness. Classical was fantastic. The sound stage was as wide as a symphony. And yes, the speakers disappeared. Their ability to place sounds beyond the left and right speakers is the best I have ever heard by a wide margin. And now the “buts”. Even though the bass improved when I moved them closer to the rear wall, in my very large listening room (about 8000 cubic feet) they were still, a little thin sounding. The sound stage that was so great on classical was not so impressive on sparser folk and acoustic music. The sound stage often seemed a bit too big and imaging within the sound stage sometimes was fuzzy or even plain wrong. If I treated the wall behind the speakers I believe the imaging would have improved significantly but even in well treated showrooms I never found the imaging to be as good as point source speakers. Two more things. One, I was blown away with how loud the 3.6s could play with absolutely no signs of stress. But the dynamics never seemed quite right to me. If I played a CD so the vocals seemed like it was at a realistic level everything else seemed bit too soft. If I got the instruments up to a realistic level vocals seemed unrealistically loud. Last, the intangible. With the 3.6s I never could just relax and enjoy the music. Maybe it’s the dipole nature of the beast, and my live big room, but I always felt the sound was sort of artificial, not quite whole and out of kilter somehow. In closing, I’d say the 3.6s are top tier speakers. They do many things well, and some better than anything I have ever heard. But for my room and my ears I decided the compromises the 801s asked of me were less. yes they cost nearly 3X what the 3.6 cost. (A few thoughts on the 20.1s - a better low end. They had more sense of ease than the 3.6s. and the timber and tonality of voices and instruments may have been a touch better but no where near enough better to cough up 2-3 times more scratch.)

Reproducing stringed instruments and human voices, soundstaging

Imaging,

Believe some of it but not all of it. My experience with the Magnepan 3.6 is that they were sensitive to placement and positioning, as many have written about, especially the low end. On the other hand, I did not find it necessary to drive them with a mega-buck, mega-powered amplifier. I drove them with an Acurus that puts out 350 watts into 4 ohms. I never heard even a hint of strain or congestion, fantastic slam and my ears gave up way before the amp did. Now, not all mid power amps will work but the Acurus uses bipolar output devices, which help with the Maggies'' low impedance load. The amp did get hotter than it ever did before but that is what the large external cooling fins are for. Believe it when you read how no speaker, at any price, reproduces the sound of guitar strings better than a ribbon Maggie. On the other hand don’t believe everything you read about the sound stage, Some details. I listened extensively to many different contenders, several times, different stores. Each time I brought recordings I know well, most of which are recognized as well recorded discs (e.g. Chris Isaak, Cowboy Junkies, Chesky Classical and Mercury Living Presence recordings, Dave Brubeck, Dire Straits, Leo Kottke, and Jeff Beck). I listened to Magnepan 3.6 and 20.1s, B&W 801s, 800s, and 802s, Revel Salons, Studios and F30s, Wilson Watt/Puppy 6s, Red Rose, Quads and Martin Logans. Enough already, you get the drift, you have the disease. The initial cut was not that difficult. Magnepans, B&W 801s, and Revels. Although the Revels cost the most and I appreciated them, I never found them emotionally involving. To my imperfect ears they sound too smooth. I know they measure spectacularly but to me they are just a tad too polite. So it was down to B&W 801s or Maggies. John and Nick, Nick and John, of Audio Connection in New Jersey sell both and they let me borrow 3.6s for a little while. Awesome store, let me repeat myself, awesome store and guys. I won’t build suspense, I liked the 3.6s, in many ways a lot, but I bought the 801s. Initially I had the maggies pulled way out from the rear wall, about five feet, hastening back to everything I have read about how dipoles need lots of space from the rear wall. My primary impression with the initial speaker placement was, thin. Even when I added my Vandersteen sub they still sounded thin. To make a long story s

Similar Products Used:

see review

First of all, I''d like to state that I have the Maggie 3.5''s. I''ve had them since late 1995. I love them!!! So let me tell you how I have them set up. And remember, I''m not a rich person. First of all, I live in a condo and my neighbors love my system, no really they do!! So being in a condo, I don''t have a lot of options for setting them up. But I did manage to get them set up really nicely. My room is a combo of a living room/dining room. so it is long. Who needs a dining table anyways. My Mag''s are 5 and 1/2 feet from the back wall with a separation of 6 and 1/2 feet from center to center. the "stage" isn''t as huge as a stadium concert but it is as big as a very large night club. I listen mostly to Jazz but I also have the home theater thing set up. Movies are great! Ok, so here is the rest of the system. I''m using a Yamaha RX-V2090 receiver with the rear channel preamp looped into the main amp of the receiver which is 100 watts to my rear speakers. The rear speakers are rebuilt and modified Bose 601’s. (I’ve had the Bose since my Air Force days and they have sentimental value). I’ve put all new drivers and better tweeters in them and also rebuild the cabinets out of oak and mounted the tweeters in the cabinets instead of on that funky metal thingy Bose came out with. They sound much better than the original Bose design. (Sorry Mr. Bose) I''m using the main pre-out from my Yamaha and connected to a Rotel RB-990BX 200 watt amp driving the Maggies. I am also using a Yamaha sub-woofer. So with just the right amount of rear channel surround set and the sub-woofer just on enough to give a little extra base (remember, I live in a condo) the over sound is pretty incredible for the room that it’s in. In my book, with the right amount of time spend with placement and tweaking, the Maggie 3.5’s sound better than any speaker available in the same price range and even in a price range above. Oh, and did I mention, they look cool..!! So, if you are looking into getting Mag''s then I''d say you can still have a nice sounding system for under $10k that can bring a pretty big grin on your face.

Impecable sound, excellent soundstage, great value.

Slightly lacking in bass, involved set-up, large(but worth the eyesore)

I bought these as a supplemental speaker, and proceeded to outdo my $30000 paradigms, it crazy, one ofthe best speaker to price deals around.

Similar Products Used:

Wilson WAMM''s, Blue Room MiniPods, NHT''s 3.2''s

soundstaging, clarity, very involving and lifelike.

very fussy about associated equipment. the high value is offset by the high end electronics nessesary to make them sound their best.

hello fellow audiophiles. i''ve read all the reviews about the maggies bass reponse not being up to par. the secret is to biamp these things. remove the supplied external crossovers which came with the speakers and get a high quality electronic xover. i''ve used bryston and now use the krell. let me tell you what two amps will do for these speakers. first, by eliminating the maggie passive xovers you will hear a big improvement in dynamics and the soundstage gets even larger. the bass power increases by leaps and bounds. this is a different and much better speaker when biamped. it sound like the performers are in the room with you-this is uncanny and sometimes spooky. i use a bryston 4bst on the bass and an audio research vt100 on the mids/highs. the drawback of course is the price of 2 amps and 2 sets of high end speaker cables. you will also need extra interconnects to hook up the electronic xover. but the difference is huge and makes this a truly world class speaker bar none. just for fun i hooked them up the old fashioned way with the maggie xovers and one amp. i could not listen for more than an hour. the dynamics and openness just died in comparison. if you can afford it, then biamp and you will not be dissapointed. mine are the 3.5 model. i have heard the 3.6 and the difference is minor. money is better spent on upgraded electronics.

Similar Products Used:

dayton wright electrostatics. martin logan. the maggies win!

Stage, image and overall musicality

Need superior electronics and source

Many equipment reviews on this site are not based on fair analysis and right tests environment. The planar 3.6R, like many other good speakers in this category (SL3, Thiel, B&W...) will deliver a superior performance only if each part of your chain is of equivalent or better quality. I hope that if you are in the market to buy such a good speaker, you already took care of the source, the cables, the pre-amp, the amp and so on. That beeing said, I can assure you that the 3.6R is a much better speaker than the 802 in every aspect. The placement is not different than my old 802 at least in my listening room and the sound is so much more natural with very detailed highs and superb bass. I dont understand why some of you use a subwofer? My friends are flabergasted by the depth and the precision of the low frequencies!Of course they will reveal themselves with better electronics but its the same for all good speakers, isn't it? One thing is sure, I will not go back to box speakers.By the way make sure the 3.6R have a minimum of 300 hours before doing any real listening.
( Equipment:Delphi Mk.4, micomega2.1,duopro2,Classé CP50-CA301, Van Den Hull and Tara Labs cables all in balanced)

Similar Products Used:

B&W 802 s.3 with sound anchor

Clarity, natural imaging, low distortion

Needs plenty of power to activate the bass

I must begin by saying that I am an unashamed Maggie addict, having owned a succession of models beginning with the MG2A. Next was the 3, the 3.3, and now the 3.6, which I think is the mightiest of the 3 series and then some. Maggies have about the best treble I have ever heard, the midrange is ultra-clear and punchy (especially in the 3.6), and the bass is articulate as all get out. I had thought that the bass was a rather weak feature until I learned to bi-amp the bass and treble with plenty of clean power (I know, Wendell says it's not necessary). But, with two Bryston 4bst stereo amps on each panel at 200 watts each channel, low frequency air begins to move. Also, perhaps because of reduced IM, the bi-amped Maggies seem much more articulate in the mid range. The 3.6s greatly improve the lower midrange over previous models. I supplement the bass with Hsu subwoofers, adding the bass at about 40 cycles and below. It adds dimension, but on most recordings, the subwoofers don't help a lot. But with good bass recordings, the articulation of the Maggie panels plus the deep punch of the Hsus almost overpower my room. Reviewers who find the Maggies lacking in dynamics probably don't use appropriate amplifiers. They don't blow one away with brute force, but they sound wonderfully matural. And although they are supremely articulate and low in distortion, they don't seem to be quite as picky about upstream components as are the Thiels or Hales. Of course, they will demonstrate the difference between a Wadia and el cheapo Cd player very quickly, but they seem not to make the latter sound really horrid. Obviously that is true of preamps and analogue equipment. Despite some scuttlebut, they are not particlarly difficult to place in a room, though placement is different than with most dynamic speakers, I hear other competing speakers quite regularly, but every time I come home from a symphony concert, I am most satisfied with the Maggies. They come very close to placing the real event in my listening room.

Similar Products Used:

Earlier Maggie models