[brooklyn]

I've had cats most of my life and Maggies four different times over the years and never had a problem with the cats scratching them, even when the
Maggies were out in the open. I always kept the plastic bags over the speakers that came with them when not in use, cats normally dont like the
sound of plastic.

The oldest cat we ever had, was 19 years old when he passed. He must have been part Maine Coon because he was a big cat but with shorter hair.

[jarcher]

Getting back to the "new" MMGs from furballs (I got one to, but it barks not meows...)

I've been breaking-in Pansixt's new MMGs & they now have about 50 hours on them.  Thought folks might be interested in some unscientific impressions of new vs old MMG's & the break in process / differences & impressions vs 1.7's.

Last year I also got a pair of MMG's - used & already broken in - and liked them so much that within a week or two got a pair of used 1.7's from someone here on AC.  So didn't have a lot of listening to those MMG's- and not recently enough - to remember well any potential sound differences between the "old" and "new" MMG's.  My MMG's are now wall mounted with some door hinges and serve as right & left surround channels in my all maggie home theater system.  But listening to Pansixt's MMG's has me thinking this might be overkill and I should take them down & use them in a second system and use MMG-W's instead as side channels. 

Anyway - getting back to "new" vs "old" MMG's - based on my visual inspection there seems to be very little difference.  The mid / bass panel seems to be the same on both (same material / number of coil loops / etc), as does the QR tweeter panel.  The mid / bass panel is the older non-QR one (like the original MMG), unlike the move from 1.6 to 1.7's.  So I wouldn't call the "new" MMG's ".7's" by any stretch until or unless they go all "QR" on the mid / bass panel as well.  Perhaps this is too cost prohibitive at the MMG price point. 

The MG 12 would seem to me an ideal candidate for the "QR upgrade" to the mid / bass panel - and allow them to justify the ever up-creep in price. In my opinion Magnepan needs a speaker below the 1.7 that's all QR.  The 1.7 is physically just too big for many people, particularly those who either have smaller rooms or "significant others".  Seems 1+ series are mostly sold on because "significant others" don't like their visual intrusiveness, or owner feels they are to physically "big" for their new accommodations.  Oddly, I also feel that at times the 1.7's sometimes make the music TOO big and there are times / benefits to having a more "intimate" smaller soundstage, particularly when listening solo fairly near-field - which I suspect is too often the case with the typical "audiophile".

The one difference I did seem to see is whereas both "new" and "old" seem to have the same capacitor & inductor in the crossover, the "new" MMG has next to the capacitor what appear to be two small blue chiclet like resistors.  Sorry folks - not gonna cut the cloth (particularly on Pansixt's new ones) to see exactly what they are (and whether the "old" MMG's has resistors hidden / buried somewhere else on the crossover). 

So there you have it - a slight (?) change to the crossover?  To me if you've been wondering whether to get the "old" or "new" ones - I wouldn't bother.  They seem to me to be mostly the same - and from foggy memory I don't recall any major differences in sound between the new & old MMGs.  Thing is - MMG's are so coveted that market used prices are not that far off from new : i.e. $400 vs $600 : and with new ones you've got the 60 day 100% refund trial to move up the chain if you want : so new may still be more worth it vs used, unless you really know you'll go no farther than MMG's or can't afford more.

As for placement & the break in process :  I currently have them on the long end of the wall in all wood floored / paneled attic room, about 3 feet back from the wall, 4 feet apart, and about 6 feet from the listening position.  Ceiling is not higher than eight feet at it's highest.  There's a throw rug in front to help with some of the floor reflections, but otherwise no other treatment.  Tweeters on the inside, no toe in & standing straight up with the flip over bracket thing.  I've tended to go with tweeters inside for these MMG's & 1.7's, mainly because I value a stable rock centered vocal and because even with the tweeters on the inside, it always seems to me that the sound stage with maggies has always been more than wide & deep enough.

I also always liked MMG's standing straight up - more immediate sound & more detail.  I'm not sure why someone would want them tilted back unless you have an unusually high listening position.  And in that case it would be better to fabricate a stand to have them up higher & straight.  The sweet spot does seem narrow - and it's almost a "one person" listening device, unless perhaps you're seating is more than 6 feet away......

I'd also remark that I don't feel the need to have them further forward than 3 feet from the wall.  That's about as far out as I have the 1.7's as well.  The MMG's do seem a bit more "airey"  farther out, but having them closer to the back wall does seem to make it a touch warmer & reinforces the bass somewhat.  Really it's often inconvenient to have speakers very far out (5+ feet) in the room - and frankly I think unnecessary. This seems to be a maggie myth that won't die along with the "super power" amp requirement, as far as I'm concerned. 

Other gear is a 1980 Pioneer SA9800 integrated amp (100 WPC) into the "amp in" input w/ a modded squeezbox duet w/ custom power supply (thanks AC'er again), some wireworld oasis interconnects, and some acoustic zen OCC speaker cable.  Have also used w/ a Conrad Johnson Sonographe TT w/ the original jelco (?) arm, ortofon 2M blue cartridge + furutech tonearm cable (run into Pioneer's surprisingly tweekable + decent sounding phono section). Playing either 256KBS or better MP3's and some ALAC files.  SB Duet unfortunately doesn't seem to do hi-rez (at least not 24 bit files). 

Lastly, on the break in process / changes : I think they sound pretty damn good cold out of the box, but do recognize that after 50+ hours of break in so far, they do sound a bit less "congested" and the bass sounds less "dry" and a bit rounder. I guess what you'd expect from the mid-range / bass panel getting a work out and loosening up. Re: congestion, I've found the mid-range / vocals to be a bit more clear after the break-in.  Re: the bass - I honestly felt that it was at times a bit TOO tight & dry, but at 50+ hours it's starting to have more of that "rounder" bass you'd expect from a typical bass cone driver.  Still very tight - honestly I'd be happier with a bit more roundness - but getting better.

Overall vs the 1.7's, I feel that the 1.7's with the much large QR panel does sound more transparent, considerably wider / deeper soundstage (though as previously mentioned, this sometimes seems exaggerated), and produces more usable bass (though honestly I think the MMG has enough for many if not most).  The 1.7 QR mid / bass panel might be considered somewhat more clinical / analytical vs the MMG (and 1.6) older mylar one, but I think the improved clarity & transparency and seamless match w/ the QR tweeter is worth it and that it's better to have it and dial it down as necessary (i.e. w/ the resistors or judicious matching of amp / preamp / source / and cabling), than to not have it and not be able to add it. 

So overall - MMG to me, whether you really want to call it "new" or not, is still the best speaker I've heard at or around $600 - but can't help feeling that a .7 version of an MG 12 w/ QR mid / bass panel could potentially be even more so the "giant killer", particularly for the smaller listening environments and practicality

[SteveFord]

Great review, thanks.
The 12s only sell well in Europe which is why they've been left as is.
I think you have a valid point about a lot of people balking at the size of the 1.7s but an updated 12 might just fit the bill.
That would be a hint.

[Rclark]

Excellent and thorough review, thanks for that!

[josh358]

I agree that a smaller higher end Maggie would be nice. In any case, you're right that cost is the reason the new MMG's aren't all quasi ribbon -- labor costs are higher for the foil than for the wire and the didn't want to increase the price of their introductory model.

I heard the same improvement you did in the midrange during early burn-in, by the way. And of course the bass.

I'm firmly in the further out they are the better camp, but I don't know that it's necessarily something that's right or wrong. It depends on the size of the acoustical space you're trying to recreate.

[medium jim]

I agree that a smaller higher end Maggie would be nice. In any case, you're right that cost is the reason the new MMG's aren't all quasi ribbon -- labor costs are higher for the foil than for the wire and the didn't want to increase the price of their introductory model.

I heard the same improvement you did in the midrange during early burn-in, by the way. And of course the bass.

I'm firmly in the further out they are the better camp, but I don't know that it's necessarily something that's right or wrong. It depends on the size of the acoustical space you're trying to recreate.

Magnepan might be smart not to over populate with different models, that said, I could see a Mid-Sized 2 or even 3 way that would be around the same size of the 1.7, with foil and a true ribbon tweeter....maybe resurrect the 2 series for that purpose.  However, the old 2 series were bigger than the current 1.7's.  One way to pull it off would be to have a wider panel that isn't as tall, somewhat on the same profile as Quads. 

My 2.5's still bring me goose bumps and hold their own with 3.6's to my ears, but are smoother being a two way, less X/O is better and would be a great model to resurrect, but with the modern Quasi Foil construction and real ribbon tweeters.  Call them the 2.7a's

Jim

[tabrink]

Have not listened to my venerable early adopter 1.6 QR or the MMG still not broken in in over two years since I got my AJ's Soundfield Audio  Monitor 1. Heading to my winter home next weekend to retrieve them..   
Lived with the 1.6 for many years before I strayed to Omega and Soundfield Audio., 

Getting back to the "new" MMGs from furballs (I got one to, but it barks not meows...)

I've been breaking-in Pansixt's new MMGs & they now have about 50 hours on them.  Thought folks might be interested in some unscientific impressions of new vs old MMG's & the break in process / differences & impressions vs 1.7's.

Last year I also got a pair of MMG's - used & already broken in - and liked them so much that within a week or two got a pair of used 1.7's from someone here on AC.  So didn't have a lot of listening to those MMG's- and not recently enough - to remember well any potential sound differences between the "old" and "new" MMG's.  My MMG's are now wall mounted with some door hinges and serve as right & left surround channels in my all maggie home theater system.  But listening to Pansixt's MMG's has me thinking this might be overkill and I should take them down & use them in a second system and use MMG-W's instead as side channels. 

Anyway - getting back to "new" vs "old" MMG's - based on my visual inspection there seems to be very little difference.  The mid / bass panel seems to be the same on both (same material / number of coil loops / etc), as does the QR tweeter panel.  The mid / bass panel is the older non-QR one (like the original MMG), unlike the move from 1.6 to 1.7's.  So I wouldn't call the "new" MMG's ".7's" by any stretch until or unless they go all "QR" on the mid / bass panel as well.  Perhaps this is too cost prohibitive at the MMG price point. 

The MG 12 would seem to me an ideal candidate for the "QR upgrade" to the mid / bass panel - and allow them to justify the ever up-creep in price. In my opinion Magnepan needs a speaker below the 1.7 that's all QR.  The 1.7 is physically just too big for many people, particularly those who either have smaller rooms or "significant others".  Seems 1+ series are mostly sold on because "significant others" don't like their visual intrusiveness, or owner feels they are to physically "big" for their new accommodations.  Oddly, I also feel that at times the 1.7's sometimes make the music TOO big and there are times / benefits to having a more "intimate" smaller soundstage, particularly when listening solo fairly near-field - which I suspect is too often the case with the typical "audiophile".

The one difference I did seem to see is whereas both "new" and "old" seem to have the same capacitor & inductor in the crossover, the "new" MMG has next to the capacitor what appear to be two small blue chiclet like resistors.  Sorry folks - not gonna cut the cloth (particularly on Pansixt's new ones) to see exactly what they are (and whether the "old" MMG's has resistors hidden / buried somewhere else on the crossover). 

So there you have it - a slight (?) change to the crossover?  To me if you've been wondering whether to get the "old" or "new" ones - I wouldn't bother.  They seem to me to be mostly the same - and from foggy memory I don't recall any major differences in sound between the new & old MMGs.  Thing is - MMG's are so coveted that market used prices are not that far off from new : i.e. $400 vs $600 : and with new ones you've got the 60 day 100% refund trial to move up the chain if you want : so new may still be more worth it vs used, unless you really know you'll go no farther than MMG's or can't afford more.

As for placement & the break in process :  I currently have them on the long end of the wall in all wood floored / paneled attic room, about 3 feet back from the wall, 4 feet apart, and about 6 feet from the listening position.  Ceiling is not higher than eight feet at it's highest.  There's a throw rug in front to help with some of the floor reflections, but otherwise no other treatment.  Tweeters on the inside, no toe in & standing straight up with the flip over bracket thing.  I've tended to go with tweeters inside for these MMG's & 1.7's, mainly because I value a stable rock centered vocal and because even with the tweeters on the inside, it always seems to me that the sound stage with maggies has always been more than wide & deep enough.

I also always liked MMG's standing straight up - more immediate sound & more detail.  I'm not sure why someone would want them tilted back unless you have an unusually high listening position.  And in that case it would be better to fabricate a stand to have them up higher & straight.  The sweet spot does seem narrow - and it's almost a "one person" listening device, unless perhaps you're seating is more than 6 feet away......

I'd also remark that I don't feel the need to have them further forward than 3 feet from the wall.  That's about as far out as I have the 1.7's as well.  The MMG's do seem a bit more "airey"  farther out, but having them closer to the back wall does seem to make it a touch warmer & reinforces the bass somewhat.  Really it's often inconvenient to have speakers very far out (5+ feet) in the room - and frankly I think unnecessary. This seems to be a maggie myth that won't die along with the "super power" amp requirement, as far as I'm concerned. 

Other gear is a 1980 Pioneer SA9800 integrated amp (100 WPC) into the "amp in" input w/ a modded squeezbox duet w/ custom power supply (thanks AC'er again), some wireworld oasis interconnects, and some acoustic zen OCC speaker cable.  Have also used w/ a Conrad Johnson Sonographe TT w/ the original jelco (?) arm, ortofon 2M blue cartridge + furutech tonearm cable (run into Pioneer's surprisingly tweekable + decent sounding phono section). Playing either 256KBS or better MP3's and some ALAC files.  SB Duet unfortunately doesn't seem to do hi-rez (at least not 24 bit files). 

Lastly, on the break in process / changes : I think they sound pretty damn good cold out of the box, but do recognize that after 50+ hours of break in so far, they do sound a bit less "congested" and the bass sounds less "dry" and a bit rounder. I guess what you'd expect from the mid-range / bass panel getting a work out and loosening up. Re: congestion, I've found the mid-range / vocals to be a bit more clear after the break-in.  Re: the bass - I honestly felt that it was at times a bit TOO tight & dry, but at 50+ hours it's starting to have more of that "rounder" bass you'd expect from a typical bass cone driver.  Still very tight - honestly I'd be happier with a bit more roundness - but getting better.

Overall vs the 1.7's, I feel that the 1.7's with the much large QR panel does sound more transparent, considerably wider / deeper soundstage (though as previously mentioned, this sometimes seems exaggerated), and produces more usable bass (though honestly I think the MMG has enough for many if not most).  The 1.7 QR mid / bass panel might be considered somewhat more clinical / analytical vs the MMG (and 1.6) older mylar one, but I think the improved clarity & transparency and seamless match w/ the QR tweeter is worth it and that it's better to have it and dial it down as necessary (i.e. w/ the resistors or judicious matching of amp / preamp / source / and cabling), than to not have it and not be able to add it. 

So overall - MMG to me, whether you really want to call it "new" or not, is still the best speaker I've heard at or around $600 - but can't help feeling that a .7 version of an MG 12 w/ QR mid / bass panel could potentially be even more so the "giant killer", particularly for the smaller listening environments and practicality

[Tone Depth]

Do MMGs typically sound better with tube amplification or solid state amplification?

[medium jim]

Do MMGs typically sound better with tube amplification or solid state amplification?

That question has been debated to death.  It comes down to personal preferences.

Jim