[k6davis]

This is the most extensive review I've read so far.

There are lots of comparative impressions between the 3.7 and the 3.7i, in which the 3.7i is always preferred and by a significant margin, but still no technical information is offered about the difference between the two models.

Even if getting the "beans spilled" on the technical difference between the two speakers is all you were looking for, it's still a worthwhile read:

http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/magnepan-37i-planar-magneticribbon-and-dwm-woofer-loudspeaker-system/

[audio.bill]

Thanks for sharing the link to this review! While I know there will be many still upset by the lack of details from Magnepan on what specifically the 'i' upgrade includes, this review does a great job in describing the sonic differences offered by the new model. I have heard both versions of the 3.7 and happen to agree with the reviewer's assessment.

[SteveFord]

Thanks for posting that.
The question is does this justify $500 plus shipping to and from Minnesota?

[*Scotty*]

Speculating on what they have done. If the they took the 3.7 out into the empty parking lot they could do a fair simulation of an anechoic chamber and measure the impulse and square wave response, which allow them to play with the crossover topology and component values to achieve a phase coherent waveform at the designated listening position.
 The speaker already has physical time alignment of the "drivers", all that is necessary is fine tuning the crossover. The early two-way maggies had first order parallel networks and had inherently phase coherent output.
Scotty

[SteveFord]

Give that man a cigar!

[k6davis]

Thanks for posting that.
The question is does this justify $500 plus shipping to and from Minnesota?

I own the 3.7i and have never listened to the 3.7. I avoided hearing the 3.7 while it was out of my price range. 

I don't know how you can answer that question, other than being able to hear the two models back to back for yourself. *I* would pay the premium to get the improvements the reviewer described and to the extent that he described them, but that's an opinion based on an opinion.

I've had enough experience with Mangnepan that I don't suspect them of being the type of company that would risk ruining their reputation and relationship with loyal customers by charging $500 for nothing/a speaker that doesn't actually sound better.

Looked at another way, $500 plus shipping doesn't seem like a lot to add to a $5k - $6k investment to a) get reportedly significantly better sound and b) not to have to wonder what you're missing. Again, that's my opinion, of course.

[mr_bill]

I own the 3.7i and have never listened to the 3.7. I avoided hearing the 3.7 while it was out of my price range. 

I don't know how you can answer that question, other than being able to hear the two models back to back for yourself. *I* would pay the premium to get the improvements the reviewer described and to the extent that he described them, but that's an opinion based on an opinion.

I've had enough experience with Mangnepan that I don't suspect them of being the type of company that would risk ruining their reputation and relationship with loyal customers by charging $500 for nothing/a speaker that doesn't actually sound better.

Looked at another way, $500 plus shipping doesn't seem like a lot to add to a $5k - $6k investment to a) get reportedly significantly better sound and b) not to have to wonder what you're missing. Again, that's my opinion, of course.

That was a very sensible approach and I agree with you.  I think I will upgrade my 3.7 to i status too.

[SteveFord]

This is going to end up with me lugging my speakers around to do an A/B comparison, isn't it?

[Davey]

Speculating on what they have done. If the they took the 3.7 out into the empty parking lot they could do a fair simulation of an anechoic chamber and measure the impulse and square wave response, which allow them to play with the crossover topology and component values to achieve a phase coherent waveform at the designated listening position.
 The speaker already has physical time alignment of the "drivers", all that is necessary is fine tuning the crossover. The early two-way maggies had first order parallel networks and had inherently phase coherent output.
Scotty

I'm not sure you can achieve phase "coherence" with these speakers regardless of how the crossover is implemented.  (Depending upon how you define "phase coherent.")
The transducers themselves are physically too large and differing distances necessarily cause comb-filtering effects wherever the microphone is placed.
If phase response anomalies are of concern (I don't think they should be) to a listener, then Magnepan's are simply not the speaker for you. 

Some single-driver conventional speakers could get pretty close, but they have other issues.

Headphones are your only real option. 

Dave.

[*Scotty*]

Two brands of loudspeaker that I know of would reproduce a recognizable 1kHz square wave. Dunlavey and Thiel.  At the very least on a certain axis and at a certain distance, the impulse response could setup to produce a near simultaneous arrival time from all three drivers. This might have audible benefits.
Scotty

[Davey]

Yeah, but as soon as you moved the microphone just a few inches that square wave would fall apart.......even in a free field environment.  Speakers in a normal listening room with all the reverberations would mess up the objective a speaker like that was designed for.

I've listened to both Dunlavy's and Thiel's and thought they sounded fine, but I don't believe it was because of the phase response and/or time coherency of the design.

Anyways, it would interesting to understand the 3.7i modifications and if they were aimed in this direction at all.  But it's all just speculation at this point.

Dave.