Has anyone compared their ascends to Magnepan MMGs

[Jacob C]

The title says it all. The MMGs have recieved rave reviews and are about the same prices as the 340's. They do, however, required a more powerful amp to drive the difficult load so they would cost more in the end. Any thoughts, comments, etc...

[bikeman]

I haven't heard the MMG's but I've heard the next model up which is the low end dealer model. There is so much pro and con about the Maggies that all you can do is read it at AVS, etc., and see if an audition is worthwhile. I would have had big time placement issues with the MMG's so I didn't order them but if I had the right type of set-up, I would have been tempted. I've liked Maggies for a long time.

David

[Jacob C]

From what I have read it seems like they sound really good on acoustic instruments but lack a bit on other material. It also sounded like they are lacking in dynamics. The Ascends seems to work well on about anything you throw at them. I still have my $$ (or lack thereof) on the Ascends I was just curious on how the MMGs held up against them. A sort of battle of the giant killers.

[Eddie]

For an electrostat which is much easier to run, you might want to look at Martin Logans though they are not cheap. I heard a pair at Tweeter that was being run by a $450 Denon AVR and sounded fabulous.

I'd rather go "cheap" with the 340s and spend the savings on CDs myself.

[Lindahl]

The criticism of the MMGs about the lack of dynamics and only being really good for jazz, classical, etc, is all tied to people doing auditions using poor electronics. If you feed them enough power, they can do anything just fine and have plenty of dynamics. Pro amps (Crown, Behringer, Carver) are probably the best choice on the cheap end and really aren't any worse than 800$ home audio amps (Adcom, Rotel, etc.). In order to get the MMGs as dynamic, expect to spend at least 800$ on more power (300$ if you use pro amps). Another major difference is room treatment. With the MMGs you'll mainly want to use diffusion on the front wall, as opposed to all absorption.

As far as how they stack up to the Ascends, here's what I'd put my money on:

Both have excellent clarity and disappear quite well. The MMGs may be more musically pleasing, while the 340SEs may be more neutral. The MMGs may have more clarity on the midrange and will have tighter bass. The 340SEs will be MUCH more efficient. The MMGs will really fill the room and have a massive soundstage, but the 340SE soundstage will be more precise. The MMGs have horrible vertical off-axis response. The MMGs need some break-in time otherwise they'll sound a bit bright. The placement of MMGs will be MUCH less flexible - you need at least 3 feet (5 feet is best) between them and the front wall, and they need to be quite far apart. Though, a nice little perk with the MMGs, is that if you do a bit of tweaking (upgrade the crossover, make sturdier stands) and use a good subwoofer, you'll come real close to the performance of the 1.6s.

The only real discernable differences for most people will be the effeciency, flexibility of positioning and the trade-off (dipole vs. monopole) between a huge soundstage and a precise soundstage (not that the MMG is imprecise). Both are really good speakers, but you have to jump through hoops to make the MMGs excel and they definately are a unique experience, mostly due to the massive soundstage.

If you are doing HT, Magnepans have a few more differences. You have to fork over almost 1000$ for a decent center with Magnepans (unless you can find a way to do 3 MMGs across the front). The lower-priced center will need a crossover of at least 160 and has a few other drawbacks. However, quite a few reviews say the Magnepan CC3 center is the best center, for any amount of money, so it's definately worth the money. On the upside, due to the huge soundstage, many people do a phantom center with Magnepans, which works suprisingly well - better than many other speakers, but off-axis does suffer some. Different crossovers for the cheaper surrounds (MMGW) and the mains (MMG) is all but a requirement (120 and 60) - though, you may get by setting your mains to large.

EDIT: Keep in mind that dipoles (Maggies) rely on a lot of reflective sound and were originally created to add excellent ambience to two channel music. With the advent of discrete surround channels (5.1), you can now get excellent ambience without the reflectivity of dipoles, and maintain precise imaging. Many people use dipole surrounds and monopole (Ascends) mains to get precise imaging up front and more diffuse sound in the back for greater ambience. It's really up to the individual to decide which they prefer - a fuller ambience of a dipole design, or a more precise pinpoint imaging monopole design. Generally, people prefer the former with music and the latter with movies (some with dipoles for only the surrounds). One extra tidbit of information: the reason why surround channels are placed so high (3-4' above your head), is that the sound will reflect more before it reaches your ears, giving a more diffused reproduction of sound, something that many monpoles (if not all) need in order to avoid sounding too directional.

[wineguy]

I went from the Classic 340s to MMGs and I agree with the comments made by Lindahl. It depends on what you are going to be using the speakers for. If you are mainly interested in music, I'd go with the MMG's easily. They have a huge soundstage, loads of detail, and killer midrange and vocals. The sound they produce is so expansive compared to conventional box speakers. You do need a lot of space for them though, and they will gladly eat up any amplification you are willing to throw at them - the more the better. If you are mainly into HT or if you have a smallish or "tricky" room, then the Ascends may better serve you. I sold my Ascends to a friend, so I still get to listen to them. I was amazed at how different they sound in her place from how they sounded in mine. They are very different spaces though. When they were at my place, they had all hardwood floors and they were powered by a Pioneer Elite receiver. At her place, they rest on carpeted floors and are now driven by a HK receiver. Very different overall sound, so the room and what is driving them can have just as much impact as the speakers themselves. The MMG's also have a smaller sweet spot, but when you are in it, man is it sweet! If you have a room that can accomodate and music is a priority, I would give the nod to the MMG's (also assuming you can give them a healthy amount of 4 ohm stable power). Fot HT, both speakers can easliy satisfy. The Ascends are "easier" speakers in that they are easier to place in the room and MUCH easier to drive. If I was setting up a dedicated home theater, the Ascends I think would be easier to set up and you can spend a lot less driving them and still have a kick a#$ system.