[Rclark]

I've put up the rest of my diffusers (the M&K's had use of these too) up, and pulled the Maggies even further out into the room, and made some fine adjustments with their placement, and once again, these speakers are staggering.

Sooooo good. The dimensionality and spacial cues are otherworldly. They were simply incapable of achieving this level in the smaller room previous.

[geowak]

Not going to get an argument here... They are an audiophile speaker for those with blue-collar wages. One of the best bargains in Hi Fi today. But once again, taste is a big factor with regard to which speakers a listener likes. I think MMGs require the owner to play around with placement and they don't really "rock out". I'm a jazz and bluegrass/folk fan, so they really do that well. I have heard the 1.7s and they are a big improvement over the MMGs. So the 3.7 and 20s must sound way over the top.....

[Rclark]

Good observations, but I'm not talking about taste, or giving these speakers a review, I'm talking about observed performance, small room, large room.

You run stock MMG's in a small room with a small amp and you are happy, great.

I will leave out extended ellipses to save bandwidth.

[Robin Hood]

This is what Magnepan has to say:

"What is the right size speaker for my room?

If you have a small room, do you need a small Magneplanar? For aesthetic reasons, you may want a small speaker, but for acoustical reasons, not necessarily so. Visually, some Maggies are rather large, but acoustically, they are quite small.

The ideal line-source speaker would be very narrow like a pole from the floor to the ceiling. The 20.7 and 3.7 are large only because of the bass section. In a very real sense, the 20.7 or a 3.7 are SMALLER than an MMG. If Magnepan sold only the portion of the 3.7 or 20.7 that operated from 200 Hz and up, the question of speaker size/room size would be less of an issue. Most of the area of a Magneplanar is needed for bass reproduction.

The larger, higher definition Magneplanar will sound better than a lower-priced model, even in a small room. To use an analogy, a high definition video monitor does not lose resolution when placed in a small room. Buy as much Magneplanar resolution as your budget will allow. Accuracy (or high definition) is the most important feature of the larger, more expensive models. To use a video analogy—with a high definition monitor, you can see the individual blades of grass, not just a sea of green. The smaller models may fit into a room more easily, but they can't equal the larger, more expensive models, for accuracy
.
If room size is an issue, "Plan B" might be one of our on-wall models such as the motorized MMC 2"

In effect Magnepan is saying that take away the bass section and the 3.7i and 20.7 are smaller than the MMG.  Maybe or maybe not, but room size aside I am convinced the 3.7i or 20.7 will blow away any of the lesser Maggies. Maybe I am just partial to a true ribbon tweeter, whether in the 3.7i, 20.7 or Mini Maggies.

[Davey]

Their description of acoustic size might seem counter-intuitive but it's actually not incorrect.  The larger speakers approach much closer to line-source radiation over a wider frequency range than the smaller speakers like the MMG's.
MMG's are only 36 inches high which means they widen vertically in polar response much more than the larger models.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Rclark]

Magnepan : "please buy our larger, more expensive speakers".

Plenty of users here report better performance with more space, marketing notwhisthanding.

[Letitroll98]

Magnepan : "please buy our larger, more expensive speakers".

Plenty of users here report better performance with more space, marketing notwhisthanding.

This statement exposes your limited experience with Magneplaners.  I agree with your general comment of more space being better, but larger Maggie's are hands down better in every way, especially those with the ribbon tweeters.  Anyone who has heard them would agree.

[jk@home]

Maybe Steve will comment on his experiences of 3.7s vs 20s at his house, in which the latter has to be the exception to Magnepan's recommendations.

[rollo]

  Maggies in a smaller room sound just fine however much better in a larger space. Tonality remains the same it is the soundstage that is affected the most.


charles

[SteveFord]

By overwhelming demand, I'll chime in.
As you go up the food chain what you're buying is increased resolution AND increased bass.
Ribbon tweeters are better than non-ribbon tweeters by a considerable margin but it's possible to have too much speaker for a room.
It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears: this one's too little, this one's too big, this one's just right.
It sounds like RClark found it with where he's currently situated.
I'm familiar with RClark's speakers thanks to MGBert and they sound like smaller 1.7s.  I'd imagine they're very similar to the current .7s but with a little bit less bass output.

What I find frustrating is that Magnepan has the technology to bring the 20.7 sound into your average sized living room but they're not interested in doing so.  The difference in sound quality between the 20.7 and the 3.7 is greater than the difference between the 3.7 and their smaller brethren.  The 20.7s will bring the sound of the actual event into your house, the other models sound like speakers.

As for space to breath, most people pull them 4-5' out from the front wall and achieve good results with a little toe-in.

Just to clarify, by increased resolution I mean that you'll hear details that simply aren't reproduced by the smaller speakers.  With each model up the line you'll hear more details in the recording.  They'll also bring out any weak spots in the rest of your system, too.

[Rclark]

This statement exposes your limited experience with Magneplaners.  I agree with your general comment of more space being better, but larger Maggie's are hands down better in every way, especially those with the ribbon tweeters.  Anyone who has heard them would agree.

WTF does larger Maggies being "better hands down" have to do with my experience with Maggies? What does better have to do with it? Is the MMG not a Magnepan speaker? I have plenty of experience with "Maggies" at this point, as far as how they work. They are all planar speakers, as far as I was aware. I didn't realize the MMG's were made of cardboard.

No, I'm not rich and don't own 30.2's. So what? Do their characteristics suddenly change with the price? Still planars, right?

[Rclark]

.

[Letitroll98]

WTF does larger Maggies being "better hands down" have to do with my experience with Maggies? What does better have to do with it? Is the MMG not a Magnepan speaker? I have plenty of experience with "Maggies" at this point, as far as how they work. They are all planar speakers, as far as I was aware. I didn't realize the MMG's were made of cardboard.

No, I'm not rich and don't own 30.2's. So what? Do their characteristics suddenly change with the price? Still planars, right?

You made the statement that it was all marketing hype, I and others who have actually heard the larger models in home installations disagree.  In your larger space you could benefit from an upgrade to the 1.7 or even more the 3.7, which I personally really like, when finances permit of course.  Your MMGs are great speakers it's just that there really is much more to be had as you move up the line.  In other words it's a reasonable debate as to whether your money is better spent on Gunned MMGs or 1.7s.  Both benefit from being in a larger space, as do most speakers, up to a point.

[*Scotty*]

Believe it or not with the gear you now have your speakers could be the weakest link in the chain. The 1.7s are a big enough step up from the MMGs that the improvements to be had won't be small or subtle.
Scotty

[Davey]

His speakers are already Gunned.
Much of this dates back to the original assertions from "Peter Gunn" that the MMG's were the superior platform for modifications and that, so modified, would out-perform the larger models.  There's a sliver of truth in that since modification of the cheaper models does have a better "value potential"....if you want to call it that.  However, there's obviously some superior engineering aspects to the larger models that simply can't be "built-in" to MMG's.

Of course, the whole premise to this thread is based on a subjective assertion/statement from an audiophile with very limited experience.

I'd like to see RClark own his posts and not delete them......but it is what it is I guess.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Rclark]

No, you guys are taking my topic, which has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with performance and just using the opportunity to come in and make drive by posts sneering at my speakers, as though that is relevant to the topic. But I should be used to that.

I've made my point. Take it from here guys.

[Davey]

When you make statements/assertions you might get questioned/corrected. 
That's the way it works when you're outside the Industry Circles here on AC.

Dave.

[Letitroll98]

And nobody's putting down your speakers.  Saying it's a debate spending on Gunned MMGs or 1.7s is pretty high praise.  Saying that 3.7s are better than both at a much higher price is merely confirming the natural order of things.

[Rclark]

I agree with Steve regarding resolution, yet one needs the right stuff to bring out said resolution.  I truly love my 2.5's which were a huge step up from my prior 1.6's.  Both were close in size, both are magnepans, both have the signature magnepan sound.  The 2.5's are simply superior (the natural order of things). 

Back to the topic/subject, large planars can sound wonderful in a small room if properly set up and are used with proper amplification and otherwise. 

Jim

I agree fully with this, if it is a dedicated listening room, and not a multipurpose room stuffed with a bed and furniture, as was my own experience.