B&W vs Magnapan Speakers

[Ruben1]

First post here.
I need your help determining the differences between 2 speakers. I know that the magnapans are a different technology from the B&W speakers but can anyone here provide me with any information as to the differences one would hear between a magnapan speaker and a B&W speaker. As far as the B&W I am looking at DM 603, DM 603 S2, DM 600i in particular. Not sure what the main differences in sound are between these B&W's let alone a comparison with the magnapans. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Karma]

HI Ruben,
I think you are asking a question that is impossible to answer. You are considering two of the finest speaker companies on the face of the earth. Not only are the tecnologies different but so is their sound, presentation, imaging, soundstaging, frequency response, weaknesses and strengths, and appearance. Both have inherent advantages.

Both companies make a range of speakers from relatively inexpensive to brake the bank expensive. They also set up differently in the room, and have different preferences in amplifiers.

I have found that folks divide into two groups. Those who love panel speakers and those who don't. Which group do you fall into? The only way to find out is to go and listen. Don't bother to read reviews. They won't help. Neither will advise from us. Go listen. It's the only answer.

OMT, if you decide you like Maggies, you should also consider the Eminent Technogy LFT series. They are also planar magnetics but use a push/pull magnet structure which takes the Magneplanar idea (they were the first) to the next logical level. Also, you might consider a used pair of Apogee speakers. Before they lost a patent infrigement law suit to Magnepan which put them out of business, they made the best magnetic planars, IMO. Also, these designs love Krell electronics (expensive). It's like they were made for one another.

Personally, I love panel speakers and I love Maggies. But my latest system is B&W. I'm no help at all.

Sparky

[Ruben1]

This does help. The reason I am looking for opinions from people which have listened to the speakers I mentioned is because the B&W line I mentioned, which is the ones I can afford, are found in the used market so I don't know where to go to audition them. As far as the magnapan I am leaning to the MMGs which unfortunatelly are not sold in stores so no way to audition them unless I want to order a pair and then send it back if I don't like them. I feel bad about doing this so for now I am looking for opinions from users of these speakers. I know the ultimate descision is mine and should be made based on how the speakers sound to me but auditioning the ones I want to get appears to be a very difficult task at best.

[Ruben1]

I should have mentined that I am looking for 2 speakers strictly for music listening. I have a different system for home theater. Thanks.

[tboooe]

ruben1: i have heard quite a few maggies and martin logans compared to b&W. electrostats are very nice sounding speakers. to me they were VERY clear sounding with excellend vocal imaging. The height of the soundstage was also better than what i heard from b&w. becuase of the technology, the integration of sound is amazing. anywhere along the membrane the sound is virtually identical so you dont have the issues related to driver integration. I also did find that they were a bit lacking in the bass and mid bass areas. to me the sound is not as full as with conventional speakers.

the biggest issue for me is the size of electrostats. i already have a hard enough time getting WAF for my regular speakers. putting a 6 ft panel speakers in the house will lead to me sleeping with our dog in the garage. i hope this helps.

[dyazdani]

ruben1: i have heard quite a few maggies and martin logans compared to b&W. electrostats are very nice sounding speakers.

Yes they are... but Maggies aren't electrostatic

I had some B&W 802s and a pair of MMGs at the same time. I played around hooking them up in the same system. The MMGs IMHO are a great value, they sounded quite good, though obviously lacking a bit compared to the 802s. The bass was not nearly as defined and the midrange was not as smooth.

It was certainly livable considering the $7500 price difference.

I think Maggies are great speakers, but I don't necessarily think you can make a generalization about the sound of the two. I would try to audition the B&Ws in your price range if possible.

[tboooe]

oopps. you are right. maggies are not electrostats...shows how much i know about the subject matter.. 8O

[dyazdani]

I guess it doesn't really matter what technology they use. All speakers are going to sound different. I agree with your description of their "sound."

You could just call them planar from now on, and don't need to specify further as to which planar technology. :T

[Ruben1]

This helps a great deal. Thanks.
I will try and audition as many as I can. As far as the B&W models I mentioned do you happen to know anything about them as far as known issues with any of them, general accepted facts about their respective sound quality, etc.. Even if I can audition some of them I don't think I will find locally all of them so opinions are appreciated from those whom have heard them. Thanks again.

[dyazdani]

The only "non-nautilus" speakers I've heard are the CDM-7 and the 601s2 which I used to have in a 2nd system.

I can't comment on the others.

[Fraise]

while they're not maggies and use a different technology, I jumped off the B&W bandwagon and moved from nautilus 803's to martin logan ascents. I do agree that the bass is not as deep as the 803's but they sound better (to me) in every other area.

[drsiebling]

I've had quite a lot of experience with Maggies, and while I love their sound, I wouldn't trade any of my B&Ws for them. In my opinion, maggies have excellent top end and decent midrange. However, bass is completely lacking. Most Magnapan users usually run a sub in line with the maggies to make up for the lack of bass. However, mid and bass imaging is seriously compromised by using a sub in a 2 channel setup. I think one of the great appeals of Maggies is that they do image so well, have an incredibly detailed top end sound and have a relatively large sweet spot. They are also very impressive looking. For my money, a good pair of B&Ws (600 or 700 series is a nice place to start) will offer many more advantages. For one, they are quite a bit smaller and will offer a much improved bass and midrange section while still providing a very accurate top end response. You can also power the B&Ws with much more affordable amplification ala Rotel. Maggies tend to need something massive. You'll save money and probably enjoy the sound of the B&Ws more. Just my opinion...

[slbenz]

Ruben,

As a former owner of B&W 3, 6 and CDM series, Martin Logan and Eminent Technology speakers and a current owner of Magnepan 1.5 and 0.5 speakers, let me share my thoughts. Each as you can imagine have their strengths and weaknesses. Started with the 3 series then upgraded to 6 series wanting more realistic mids and highs. With each upgrade in the B&W line, the overall presentation becomes more realistic. The downside of the B&Ws when compared to electrostats, planars and planar magnetics is the boxy coloration with the sound. At least for the 3 and 6 series for me. But on the plus side, the B&Ws are more dynamic sounding than the others when playing rock music. The electrostats, planars and planar magnetics excel with jazz, acoustic and vocals. They are know from sweet mids and openess. Definitely agree about the bass issue with the other poster about the Magnepans. You will need a fast subwoofer to aid the bass. With Martin Logan and Eminent Technology, a sub will help but may not be all that necessary since both use a conventional bass driver. I would recommend listening to the two speaker lines you are interested in. The B&W speakers are very good all-around speakers. I prefer the Magnepans for now since my taste in music has changed to jazz, acoustics and vocals. You will definitely need lots more quality power to make the Magnepans and Eminent Technology speakers sings vs. the B&Ws. The Martin Logans are also easy to drive. Hope this information helps.

[Joey_V]

slbenz,

I wouldnt say that the Logans are easy to drive. The Vantage and Summits hit the 1ohm mark at certain points of their frequency response and this is enough for a grown amp to cry.... and result in stunted dynamics.

[Karma]

HI,
Being the owner of Martin Logan CLSIIA electrostatics (no built in sub), I know for sure they are difficult to drive. As Joey V said, their impedance drops to about 1.5 ohms at 20kHz. From 10kHz up, the impedance drops which can drive lesser amps nuts. This is characteristic of electrostatics which is basically a capacitive load. They ae just big, beautiful capacitors.

I love my ML's and would not trade them for any speaker I know. They are VERY picky about the amplifier used to drive them. I would never allow a mid-priced amp into the same room. They ask for the best. The up side is they will reward your amplifier choice with pristine sound.

I also do not agree with statements about dynamics. Maybe we are defining the term differently. They are fast! Blindingly fast. But, in terms of absolute SPL's, they can be bested by good conventional speakers. Personally, I think they go plenty loud. So, if lease braking volumes are your thing, maybe one should choose conventional speakers. B&W's are certainly a good option.

Sparky

[slbenz]

slbenz,

I wouldnt say that the Logans are easy to drive. The Vantage and Summits hit the 1ohm mark at certain points of their frequency response and this is enough for a grown amp to cry.... and result in stunted dynamics.

Joey,

I understand what you say but I guess what I was trying to say that when compared especially to the Eminent Technology and to a lesser extent, the Magnepans, the Martin Logans I used to own which were the Scenarios weren't as power hungry as the other speakers. This is more related to efficency than ohm rating. If I remember correctly, don't the Martin Logans rate them at 6 ohms but depending on model dip down to 1-2 ohms at 20Khz? I seem to remember not having to turn up the volume as high when I had the Martin Logans vs. the Eminent Technologies or Magnepans to get them to sing. Thanks for the clarification.

[slbenz]

HI,
Being the owner of Martin Logan CLSIIA electrostatics (no built in sub), I know for sure they are difficult to drive. As Joey V said, their impedance drops to about 1.5 ohms at 20kHz. From 10kHz up, the impedance drops which can drive lesser amps nuts. This is characteristic of electrostatics which is basically a capacitive load. They ae just big, beautiful capacitors.

I love my ML's and would not trade them for any speaker I know. They are VERY picky about the amplifier used to drive them. I would never allow a mid-priced amp into the same room. They ask for the best. The up side is they will reward your amplifier choice with pristine sound.

I also do not agree with statements about dynamics. Maybe we are defining the term differently. They are fast! Blindingly fast. But, in terms of absolute SPL's, they can be bested by good conventional speakers. Personally, I think they go plenty loud. So, if lease braking volumes are your thing, maybe one should choose conventional speakers. B&W's are certainly a good option.

Sparky

Sparky,

I believe we are defining dynamics differently. I am talking about SPLs and their impact on your body vs. how fast a speaker can react quickly to the musical input. I totally agree with you on the electrostats that they are extremely fast to react to the musical input over conventional speakers. The electrostats have a more difficult time to play rock music with the SPLs and impact on your body vs. conventional speakers. In regards to a difficult load, I have responded to Joey's post and agree that Martin Logans can be difficult to drive from an ohm load perspective but the MLs as much more efficient to drive to reference levels vs. my old Eminent Technology speakers which were rated at 80dB/watt. That's what I meant when I made the statement about which speaker was easier to drive to reference levels. Hope I was able to clarify any confusion I might have started.

[Joey_V]

I see what you're saying SL.... the ML are generally pretty decently sensitive. The Summits and Vantage are rated at 4ohms fyi. Not sure about the older models though.

[Karma]

HI SL,
I believe my ML CLSIIA's are rated at 8 ohms with a sensitivity of 86dB. It's been a while since I looked so I may be wrong about the impedance. These are not bad numbers but they definitely don't tell the whole story. I'm driving them with a 250W/channel Audio Reaearch tube amplifier. The sound is to die for. It's hard to be humble sometimes.

My ML's do not go loud or deep if they are run full range. They just start crackling and popping and spitting and generally complaining when the going get rough. At least they don't crap out as did some previous designs. I'm thinking of Quad ESL's. They also do not train well so a good kick in the butt does no good.

The solution is subwoofers and biamping. The problem is that most (all?) subs are not fast or articulate enough to integrate with the panels outstanding speed. Kinnergetics, now out of business, purpose designed their SW-800 tower subs specifically for use with the CLS's. They were only sold in pairs. They are great subs and mesh perfectly with the CLS's, both sonically and physically. This allows me to limit the bandwidth of the CLS's signal using a simple 6dB/octave high pass filter. Keeping the low bass out of the panels is the key to impressive dynamic range. This system now goes loud without strain.

Loud enough for SL? Mabe not but still loud. And the bass moves the walls and my pant legs.

Sparky