[SteveFord]

From Mr. Diller:

Members of the Press,

We apologize to our loyal customer base, but we had no choice.

With the 20.7, we had to raise the price more than we would have liked.

The 20.7 MSRP is $13,850 pair. That is an increase of $855 from the 20.1. But, we think the improvement in sound will mitigate any resentment of this regrettable price increase.

[SteveFord]

Reviews are starting to come in:

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-207-loudspeaker

[medium jim]

  Great news for Maggie fans. Reading between the lines Cap changes and a redesign of the passive crossover appear to be the bulk of the change.
   Get out the soldering irons.  Or save your pennies.
charles
SMA
 

Charles:

I agree...there was a lot of talk on the PA about PLXXO that seems to be what Magnepan has adopted. I believe that my 2.5's were redone this way as the prior owner was a sound engineer.

Nevertheless, 20.7's are the schnitzel

Jim

[SteveFord]

With some major home renovations, perhaps I'll have a pair someday.
I'll do it when the wife is away visiting her sister...

[Emil]

What is a 20.7? A larger 3.7 with better crossover parts?

[kevin360]

I'm sure I could come up with a workable change to my room in order to accommodate a pair, but I'm working to keep the temptation at bay by never planting my ears before a pair. I remember when I finally auditioned the 3.6s while planning the new room - couldn't sleep that night, but it sure did motivate me to get the construction completed!

I don't know about you (Steve), but I'm very satisfied with the 3.7s - fantastic speakers, even if they're not 20.7s.

In fact, I'm sitting here listening to my MMG/REL hybrids (in a seriously nearfield setup), and they're pretty amazing too.

I'd say considerably more went into the .7 series than XO changes.

(Emil) The larger area combined with a push-pull magnet structure for the bass driver gives the 20.7 a significant advantage in bass reproduction (over the 3.7). Taller is better too. I'm considering them out of reach, so I'm a bit happy they won't fit in my room. 

[thunderbrick]

Where can I get info on XO upgrades?  My 20.1s should be here before long, and I am pretty handy with a Weller iron.   

[kevin360]

Now 'brick,

Those 20.1s haven't even been delivered and you're planning their first tweeze. We're a sick lot, aren't we? Gettin' close!

[thunderbrick]

I am sitting here thinking, "ya know, another $7K might actually have been doable", but I usually buy two good used cars for that kind of cash, then run the wheels off of 'em!

Does make me feel a little hand-me-down, though. 

Edit: Most of my amps are out for checkup, and my Parasound HCA 1000a just isn't as sweet as my ol' reliable Moscode 300.  It'd be a pity to only have the HCA when the 20's arrive, so c'mon, guys, send me a waybill # so I can sit up nights and track the shipment.   

[SteveFord]

I can't help you with crossover upgrades but I believe they're using the same quasi-ribbon deal as they did with the 1.7s and 3.7s.
If so, you're looking at what's basically a different model.
As for being happy with the 3.7s, the answer is yes, I don't have the speaker upgrade bug. 
The system with the 1.7s sounds the best to me so I keep looking at my preamp and have been debating sending it out for upgrades ($1000) or put the money towards something else. 
That's going to have to wait for a while, though, as it's motorcycle season and they require stuff like tires, fluid changes, batteries, bulbs, insurance...
Thunderbrick, did you take a look at Bernie's stands for the 20.1s?  That looks like something that would be worth doing.
I don't think you'll feel shortchanged with your 20.1s!

[medium jim]

Now 'brick,

Those 20.1s haven't even been delivered and you're planning their first tweeze. We're a sick lot, aren't we? Gettin' close!

Kevin:

I'm pretty sure that "Audiophile" means "Overly anal obsessed individuals who will do what ever it takes to achieve tonal nirvana!"

Jim

[thunderbrick]

Yes, i did.  Very interesting, and I have a complete machine shop at my disposal (once school lets out).  I'm actually thinking of something different.  Almost 30 years ago I rigged up stacked Dahlquist DQ-10s, and I still have the 1" tubular stands from that rig and have been looking at it and thinking "I wonder.............(fill in the blanks).      Would raise the 20s about 10 inches higher and keep them perfectly vertical.
We'll see, we'll see...........

[thunderbrick]

Kevin:

I'm pretty sure that "Audiophile" means "Overly anal obsessed individuals who will do what ever it takes to achieve tonal nirvana!"

Jim

Or guys who like to take things apart and see what makes 'em tick.  And then decide that we know WAY more than the designers, and proceed to release the "magic blue smoke".   

[berni]

Raising the bass panel higher could  decrease the bass reproduction (allison dip effect). Stiffening the frame is a must and by doing it the way I did, gives you also the rigidity of the whole frame, which is not achieved by Mye(only 2 points..)
Also the small wings on the botoom could lead to better low bass, due to extended baffle with the wings, which leads to less cancelation.
Here a similar spproach but in wood:

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/magnepan-mg-20-0-beautiful-custom-curly-maple-frames

[medium jim]

If the 20.7's are quasi ribbon in the panels, as opposed to aluminum wire, the x/o values will be different and will need to be converted if trying to upgrade the 20.1 to the same specs.

Jim

[SteveFord]

I'll see if I can't get an answer tomorrow.

That was kind of an odd review in Jonathan Valin's blog - a couple of pages of speakers that cost several times more are much more wonderful in one area or another so it seems like a negative or at best a lukewarm review.
They don't do this, they don't do that and yet towards the end he states
"the 20.7s come as close to achieving Harry Pearson’s goal of reproducing the sound of real instruments in real space as any speaker I’ve heard. I love ’em".

I'm going to have to go hear a set. 
My guess is they're 3.7s but more of it (as the 1.7s are to the 3.7s).

[medium jim]

Steve:

I suspect you're right, that the 20.7's are sonically similar to the 3.7's, just more.  I also suspect that the larger panels of the 20.7's result in more reaching bass.

I've heard many different models of Magnepan's as I'm sure many here have also, and there is definitely a Magnepan signature sound.

Jim

[kevin360]

My guess is they're 3.7s but more of it (as the 1.7s are to the 3.7s).

Hey Steve,

I'm just curious about how true you'd say the latter part of that statement is. As you own both, you can hear each within minutes of each other - of course, they are in different systems, so... Still, I think the 1.7s may be a touch more coherent than the 3.7s, though I do prefer the 3.7s.

I don't think I want to hear the 20.7s (or 20.1s for that matter) as they could well haunt me...until I caved. I had that feeling about a tube amp for quite a number of years and then the opportunity presented itself, and then the amp presented itself, and then I reacted. These hauntings are possessions - they make us buy things. I ain't complainin'!    

Anyway, how would you characterize the two models you own in terms of coherence?

[josh358]

I'll see if I can't get an answer tomorrow.

That was kind of an odd review in Jonathan Valin's blog - a couple of pages of speakers that cost several times more are much more wonderful in one area or another so it seems like a negative or at best a lukewarm review.
They don't do this, they don't do that and yet towards the end he states
"the 20.7s come as close to achieving Harry Pearson’s goal of reproducing the sound of real instruments in real space as any speaker I’ve heard. I love ’em".

I'm going to have to go hear a set. 
My guess is they're 3.7s but more of it (as the 1.7s are to the 3.7s).

Yeah, I hear there's been some confusion about that. Usually, they'll put the positives first, then mention the negatives, then end with a summation. But for some reason he put the negatives first this time around. He also put them in sort of a negative context, e.g., rather than saying "this has the best definition I've heard outside of an electrostat" he'll say say as you point out "Blah blah has better definition, but the 20.7's are close." But the final paragraph makes it clear that he loves them and he says in the comments that he thinks they're the best single-panel Maggie ever (that in a comment he made below the review).

Too bad it came out that way, I think it's a very thorough, very perceptive, and when all is said and done, very positive review.

[josh358]

Hey Steve,

I'm just curious about how true you'd say the latter part of that statement is. As you own both, you can hear each within minutes of each other - of course, they are in different systems, so... Still, I think the 1.7s may be a touch more coherent than the 3.7s, though I do prefer the 3.7s.

I don't think I want to hear the 20.7s (or 20.1s for that matter) as they could well haunt me...until I caved. I had that feeling about a tube amp for quite a number of years and then the opportunity presented itself, and then the amp presented itself, and then I reacted. These hauntings are possessions - they make us buy things. I ain't complainin'!    

Anyway, how would you characterize the two models you own in terms of coherence?

Gotta watch those cravings! Also what John Atkinson calls "Princess and the Pea syndrome," when you own something for a while you start to hear every little flaw . . . but if someone walked in the room and you pointed them out, they'd say "Huh? You're worried about that?"