[kevin360]

Maybe Kevin wants to try the DWM's? He doesn't have enough space for 20.7's.

Kevin would love to give a pair of DWMs a go, but he recently (gee, thanks Steve) discovered that 20.7s actually will fit. Ignorance was bliss. It would be less expensive to add DWMs than to transition from the 3.7s. Perhaps, I should give Wendell a ring. The thing is that I'll have something else to pay for towards the end of this month (and I have no bloody idea what that bill is going to be). It will have to wait.

I finally cemented location and sub settings - one arduous process. Coupled with the addition of more trapping, I'm approaching bass heaven. Well, I'd rather have a fan involved with the development of the bass, but...

---

I definitely recommend regular maintenance over the periodic removal of plugs. There's nothing wrong with the judicious use of Q-Tips - the only contact should be during the withdrawal of the swab. At least, I've never had a problem with wax and I've used Q-Tips every day after my shower for as long as I can remember. I'll occasionally put a couple of drops of oil in each ear an hour before my shower. Lucky me, I've never even had an earache (ever).

[medium jim]

Kevin:

Glad that you see the end in sight for the VAC!

Jim

[mg3720]

I have to ask – what are the dimensions of said room?

The room is 18’ wide, 24’ long, 9.75’ high.  With all those speakers, there are only two seats.

I do not run my subs except for movies.  I do have bass traps in the corners and behind the 3.7 surrounds which helped (side surrounds and DSX wide surrounds).  I do not have any acoustic treatments behind the 3.5’s because they do just fine without them (rear surrounds).  I definitely do have some room acoustics issues.  Power is not a problem as I have monoblocks driving each speaker.

[SteveFord]

THIS is what Magnepan is trying to get across (swiped from their web site):
---------------
Put a big speaker in a small room, too much bass. Put a small speaker in big room, too little bass. In general, it is true. There is no one-size-fits-all. In an ideal world, the bass diaphragm would be like an accordion which could be expanded to exactly fit the needs of your acoustical environment. Adding one or more of the Maggie Bass Panels accomplishes the same results.

Most of the area of any full-range Maggie is devoted to bass reproduction. (In the case of the 20.7, 76% of the total radiating area is devoted to bass.) Audiophiles can be nostalgic about the 6-panel Magneplanar Tympanis of the 1970's and '80's. But, they could sound like a trombone in a telephone booth in a small room. The Magneplanar Bass Panel offers you the flexibility to add bass diaphragm area to fit the needs of your room. From the $600 pair MMG to the 20.7, the Maggie Bass Panel can get the bass/midbass "just right".
--------------------

From my own experiences, using a DMW with 1.7s was a nice addition but it wasn't all that necessary in my particular room with my particular equipment.  Going back to the little NHT sub was kind of like losing a finger - it would be better to have all of your fingers but you can make do with one missing.
The NHT sounds like crap by comparison, by the way.
If you find the bass/midbass area lacking a bit in your room with your equipment, these may be the ticket.
It should be an interesting demonstration - who is going to be our Ace Reporter?

Wendell just asked me this:
Please ask anyone from the chat rooms to introduce themselves to me or Mark Winey at the Flamingo 4th floor, Conference Room A.

I didn't see any mention about free food but one can only hope.

[medium jim]

That leaves me out, can't be in two places at the same time.   Although, I would love to meet Mark and I would have brought the Hor Dourves!

Jim

[Toni Rambold]

I sometimes feel my 12 year old 3.6´s had more bass than my current 3.7´s, but
perhaps they are not broken-in yet.....or will the 3.6´s really go lower?

Seems to be !

Frequency response measurements on axis in an anechoic chamber of the 1.7 and the 3.7 do
not show the distinct bump of the older models (1.6, 3.6) in the mid- to upper bass region.
But the fr of both speakers descend around 40 Hz and confirm the manufacturer's specifications.

[Hasse]

Seems to be !

Frequency response measurements on axis in an anechoic chamber of the 1.7 and the 3.7 do
not show the distinct bump of the older models (1.6, 3.6) in the mid- to upper bass region.
But the fr of both speakers descend around 40 Hz and confirm the manufacturer's specifications.

Interesting, this might explain why some find the older models warmer sounding.

[josh358]

Seems to be !

Frequency response measurements on axis in an anechoic chamber of the 1.7 and the 3.7 do
not show the distinct bump of the older models (1.6, 3.6) in the mid- to upper bass region.
But the fr of both speakers descend around 40 Hz and confirm the manufacturer's specifications.

Where have you seen those measurements? I haven't seen much by way of measurements of the new models -- just one curve someone ran on their 1.7's (which as I recall was in line with what you say).

[Hasse]

Are these specs and assumptions correct? 

01-21-13: Don_c55
@ Josh358

"The 3.7 does not put out as much bass as the previous models!

Look at Magnepan's published specs:

MG IIIa 32Hz to 45 KHz +/- 3 dB

Mg 3.6 34Hz to 45 KHz +/- 4db

Mg 3.7 37Hz to 45Khz +/- ??? Hz

That says it all, the 3.7 bass response is not as low!

Probably due to back EMF interference in the series crossover.

Google Series Vs Parallel Crossover for info.

Mark Winey wanted the crossover small enough to fit inside the speaker, and
eliminate the external box, and that was a design tradeoff!

There are many posts and reviews on the internet about lesser bass on the 3.7.

Now they want to sell another panel to bring back the missing bass."

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1358289289&openfrom&1&4#1

[Davey]

Total speculation.  A series crossover configuration is not going to affect the bass response of the speaker in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure if the 3.6 has more/less bass than the 3.7, but in either case it has to do with a differing physical configuration and/or the quasi-ribbon (versus wire) configuration on the transducer and not with the crossover.

Cheers,

Dave.

[Pryso]

First, I should admit that even with several decades in this hobby I've never owned a subwoofer.  Therefore my perspective comes from hearing friend's systems and reading about experiences from others.

It seems to me one of the major potential benefits of subwoofer systems is the simple fact of being separated from the primary speakers.  This should allow placement of the primary speakers where they will achieve their best imaging and smoothest response.  Then the subwoofers (I've read it is much easier to get smoothest bass response from two, rather than one.  That would be for music, not effects as with a sub for a home theater.) can be placed independently to tune for best desired response.

Even though the DWM (dipole woofer - Magnepan?) is promoted as a bass/mid-bass driver, not a sub-woofer, it seems the same benefits should apply.  Magnepan's discussions about adjusting placement relative to the sidewalls to fine tune the level of bass supports this idea.  So it seems this flexibility might provide better ultimate performance when coupling a pair of DWMs with a given Maggie model than going to the next larger model without the DWMs.  But as I'm admitting, that is a guess on my part.  Anyway, I hope Magnepan extends their home trial offer until I can take advantage of it. 

Now a question about bass equalization.  Some discussion here makes reference to boost or cut with an equalizer.  Again without personal experience, I have been advised that while EQ may be good to cut bass peaks, one is better not to attempt boosting any bass frequency.  Woofer placement is a better solution to overcome bass dips.  Comments on this from personal experience?   

 

[SteveFord]

I think that's what they're getting at - you can fine tune the bass in your room with the DMWs.
Wendell did say they were getting into the low or mid 20s (Hz) with the 3.7/DMW combo at the show. 

I'm not the subwoofer guru; I use one with the MMGs and just ran it line out from the preamp, set the phase for highest output, set the sub's crossover at 40 Hz and adjusted the output by ear until it blended in well.

I also have one of those rooms where there's no bizarre sonic anomalies, lucky me.

[Toni Rambold]

I think that's what they're getting at - you can fine tune the bass in your room with the DMWs.
Wendell did say they were getting into the low or mid 20s (Hz) with the 3.7/DMW combo at the show.

 

According to the Magnepan website the frequency respones of the 3.7 is: 35 Hz - 40 kHz

The frequency response of the DWM bass panels is: 40 Hz - 200 Hz

The combination of both would give an additional boost to the mid/upper bass and the
lower midrange region - but do not add anything to the bottom octave.

[berni]

Having a good mid bass is the basic in having a good sound and fill, no sub or boosting the lowest octaves can do the same. The region beetween 50 and more or less 200 hz is very important. Been there done this.

[rollo]

Gentleman the concept and design of the 3.7 is coherency of the drivers which BTW is very well executed.  Proper mid bass is what  makes you feel the music. Intergrating a sub can be done but difficult with the 3.7. Using an active crossover helps but adds another piece into the mix which could muck everything up.
    For those who desire more bass output try a sub behind you or to either side of your listening position [ minimum 4 ft away] out of phase to the 3.7. bring up the volume of the sub until you hear the room fill with bass.  Then adjust accordingly for balance.
    Maggie 3.7 bass is more than adequate for most music. If your a pipe organ, rocker, goth or hip hop person go elsewhere. Linearity of this design outweighs the deepest bass notes available. So a tradeoff. For us quite good enough as is.



charles
     

[SteveFord]

Toni,
That's what I thought, too. 
I do know that they quote their figures on the conservative side and aren't prone to exaggeration.
If they say 20s I have no reason to not believe them.

[josh358]

According to the Magnepan website the frequency respones of the 3.7 is: 35 Hz - 40 kHz

The frequency response of the DWM bass panels is: 40 Hz - 200 Hz

The combination of both would give an additional boost to the mid/upper bass and the
lower midrange region - but do not add anything to the bottom octave.

You'd think so, but Wendell discovered to his surprise when he paired it with the new MMG that the bass response was actually lower than it had been! We discussed this weird phenomenon at length and my best guess was and is that the baffles are combining to lower Fequal. This will have the effect both of boosting midbass and lowering the 3 dB point. The effect will of course be position dependent, which is what Wendell has found.

When analyzing this, you have to take into account the room reflections. Against a side wall, for example, the DWM baffle has an acoustical area four times what it has in free space -- you have first of all the floor reflection, and then the reflection in the sidewall. Now add in the 3.7, which is also reflected in the floor (like any dipole), the ceiling (being a line source), and side walls. The DWM can in effect plug part of the hole in which dipole cancellation occurs. You also create a plane wave below the spatial Nyquist frequency which has a number of interesting effects, including the fact that the wave isn't attenuated with distance, which will give you some gain when compared with the usual 1/R (or 1/R^2 for the shorter models above the spatial Nyquist frequency). The dipole plane wave can give rise in turn to some very interesting effects depending on setup, such as the cancellation of all bass modes! In effect, you can make a passive single bass array by sitting the same distance from the rear wall as the speakers are from the front.