[josh358]

Still, I'm surprised that in their flagship 20.7's that they didn't go with better X/O's and they still could have been under 15K, but again, the 20.7's are amazingly good as they are.

They did upgrade the crossovers in the .7's, both the topology and the quality of the capacitors. And also perhaps the fact that with a single-order crossover, besides its intrinsic advantages, there are *fewer* components to mess up the sound.

It may be worth noting too that Magnepan insists that improvements be preferred by a panel in a blind test before they incorporate them. That may not catch everything that could make a difference, but it's a great way get maximum bang for the buck, which contributes to the fact that their speakers routinely outpunch others in their price class (sonically, anyway -- the WAF issue is another thing). And that's where they want to be in the market. They consider themselves a value speaker manufacturer and would rather make a product that's affordable by many audiophiles rather than a very pricey one that's sold to a few.

These days, with the middle class under pressure, the bright spot in audio retailing is in the luxury category. But it isn't what they do, and Wendell would rather forgo a few sales than lose their reputation as a "bang for the buck" manufacturer.

[SteveFord]

Has anyone disrobed the new ones to see what caps are in there? 
I know that they're an improvement over the .6 series but I hate stapling those socks so much I haven't looked.
Good point about the amplification making or breaking the sound with these, truer words were never spoken. 
A .7Ultra series is fun to speculate about but then they'd be priced like the CLX which won't happen at my house anytime soon.  I got a 48 cent an hour raise - my Union dues at work!

At any rate, welcome to the forum, Mr. Gunn, and I hope that you'll be made welcome by the membership and we'll all remember that it's only stereo stuff and nothing worth squabbling about.
Peter, please check your PMs.

[medium jim]

I bought my 2.5's and they already had the x/o's upgraded, nevertheless, they put just as many staples back when they put the socks back on.  It was more time consuming removing them than it was to repair the delamination they had!

Needless to say, I was a minimalist with the staples!

Jim

[TONEPUB]

Jeff,

I am going to read your Magnepan reviews again and carefully compare them to this post and some of your post on MLOC. There seems to be some equivocation or contradiction here. This post is intriguing and tends to match some ideas that I have been considering.

I'm not sure that I contributed more than additional listening to the 1.7 and 3.7 reviews, I'm pretty sure Steve Guttenberg wrote them. I haven't posted on the ML site in years, but I've always said that anyone liking the ML sound has always been pretty much the opposite of those liking the Magnepan sound.  I've always been surprised to meet someone like myself who likes them both. I've owned a pretty much equal number of both companies products, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Not sure what you're seeing as a contradiction here.

[josh358]

Has anyone disrobed the new ones to see what caps are in there? 

AFAIK, PG's the only one who's been inside so far.

I believe Wendell said somewhere in print that they're the same OEM caps that are sold under a fancy name, for much higher prices.

Also think I read somewhere that the better caps were audible in a blind test when they tried them.

[josh358]

I've always been surprised to meet someone like myself who likes them both. I've owned a pretty much equal number of both companies products, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

That last about pretty much sums it up for me. I enjoy the superior detail, seamlessness, and neutrality of stats, but not the dynamic limitations (for those of us who can't fit Sound Labs, anyway), limited bass extension or hybrid bass discontinuity, HF beaming (commonly), and tizzy mylar resonances. So I think the choice is going to come down to what works best, given budget, room size, listening levels, and personal preferences.

I know of a couple of people who have combined Tympani bass panels with ML mid-tweeters with what I imagine are spectacular results.

One thing that did puzzle me in what you said -- you suggested that Magnepan had gone for a more "hi fi" sound. I haven't heard the 1.7 or 20.7 but I did hear the 3.7 and it didn't seem hi fi sounding to me. The system did sound too bright the first time I heard it (tri-center plus 3.7, so it may not have been the latter), but Wendell tweaked the resistors and the problem went away.

[munosmario]

Hi Steve:

I guess I'd disagree with you on Magenpan moving into the 21st century terribly well. I've talked to plenty of dealers around the world that have all told me Magnepan continues to be a tougher sell every year.  Back when I bought my first pair in the late 70's, they were pretty unique.  Today, you can get a box speaker that sounds pretty good and looks good too. 

But the new speakers have been well received.  We gave them a good review as well. I would agree with you that the coherence of the new speakers is better because of the all ribbon design.  I'm guessing that's why many like the earlier models so much - the panels were all the same materials, so you don't get the sense of sound coming from a separate woofer, tweeter and midrange.  So in that direction the .7 models are an improvement.

Strictly speaking, in the .7 series, except for the first of the series, the 1.7 (all quasi-ribbon), the panels or segments in the 3.7 & 20.7 are not all of the same material.
 
Although Magnepan uses the term "all ribbon" referring to the .7 series, that may be misleading as some could interpret it as all the speakers in the series having all panels/segments made out of pure ribbons, i.e., the same material--which is is not necessarily the case:

1.7>> All panels/segments quasi-ribbon
3.7>> Bass & midrange quasi-ribbon; tweeter pure-ribbon
20.7>> Bass & midrange quasi-ribbon; tweeter pure-ribbon

As you know, in Magnepan's parlance, a quasi-ribbon is still a mylar based speaker using, instead of a wire, an aluminum strip or ribbon glued to it as the "coil" conducting the electricty over the mylar surface to set it in motion....while a pure-ribbon is just that, no mylar, just the ribbon.   

munosmario 

[rw@cn]

I'm not sure that I contributed more than additional listening to the 1.7 and 3.7 reviews, I'm pretty sure Steve Guttenberg wrote them. I haven't posted on the ML site in years, but I've always said that anyone liking the ML sound has always been pretty much the opposite of those liking the Magnepan sound.  I've always been surprised to meet someone like myself who likes them both. I've owned a pretty much equal number of both companies products, and both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Not sure what you're seeing as a contradiction here.

You are correct about Guttenberg. He pretty much gave them raves. Over the years I've had a good number of Logans and four pairs of Maggies. I thoroughly enjoy them both.

[TONEPUB]

That last about pretty much sums it up for me. I enjoy the superior detail, seamlessness, and neutrality of stats, but not the dynamic limitations (for those of us who can't fit Sound Labs, anyway), limited bass extension or hybrid bass discontinuity, HF beaming (commonly), and tizzy mylar resonances. So I think the choice is going to come down to what works best, given budget, room size, listening levels, and personal preferences.

I know of a couple of people who have combined Tympani bass panels with ML mid-tweeters with what I imagine are spectacular results.

One thing that did puzzle me in what you said -- you suggested that Magnepan had gone for a more "hi fi" sound. I haven't heard the 1.7 or 20.7 but I did hear the 3.7 and it didn't seem hi fi sounding to me. The system did sound too bright the first time I heard it (tri-center plus 3.7, so it may not have been the latter), but Wendell tweaked the resistors and the problem went away.

I guess the sound thing is a matter of taste and perspective then.

As for the dynamics and hybrid bass discontinuity, ML has done a fantastic job on the last two generations and the new Montis is spectacular.  In comparison, they have quite a bit more dynamic oomph than any of the Magnepans.  That's always been what's driven me away from Magnepan at the end of the day, they just don't rock.  I know we will have loyal Maggie fans that will squeal over this comment, but I've owned practically every Magnepan ever made and they just don't have the grunt of a great cone speaker.  The ML's come a lot closer.

But it is all very personal.  The Magnepans do what they do very well.

[Rclark]

 I certainly defer to your experience but the one time I heard ML's I didn't care for them, they were the type that had a woofer mounted at the bottom. Of course I have no idea what they were using to drive it.

 These MMG's certainly seemed to squeel with dynamics with the Ncores applied to them, of course, not the same sort of punch or bass as a cone woofer, but my coming sub will solve that issue. However what you do get in my small room is more than satisfying. But you're right, these speakers aren't going to punch you in the chest.

[medium jim]

I guess the sound thing is a matter of taste and perspective then.

As for the dynamics and hybrid bass discontinuity, ML has done a fantastic job on the last two generations and the new Montis is spectacular.  In comparison, they have quite a bit more dynamic oomph than any of the Magnepans.  That's always been what's driven me away from Magnepan at the end of the day, they just don't rock.  I know we will have loyal Maggie fans that will squeal over this comment, but I've owned practically every Magnepan ever made and they just don't have the grunt of a great cone speaker.  The ML's come a lot closer.

But it is all very personal.  The Magnepans do what they do very well.

TONEPUB:

I have several sets of conventional cone speakers, even a pristine set of JBL L100A's, probably the best rock speaker ever.   Yet, I prefer my 2.5's and can honestly tell you that I have all the dynamics and slam I will ever need to go with the incredible soundstage, detail and clarity. 

Many years ago I had a pair of Altec VOTT A7's and that was a whole different animal, so I do have an idea of what a dynamic speaker sounds like. 

You are so, so correct, it is a matter of personal choice and preferences. 

Jim

[SteveFord]

Everyone knows that the die hard Magnepan fans don't squeal over Martin Logans, we only squeal over Brittany Spears.
Some of us are more demonstrative than others, though:
http://www.clip4e.com/play_leave_britney_alone.htm

Yes, I know it's juvenile but that clip always gave me a laugh.

[josh358]

I guess the sound thing is a matter of taste and perspective then.

As for the dynamics and hybrid bass discontinuity, ML has done a fantastic job on the last two generations and the new Montis is spectacular.  In comparison, they have quite a bit more dynamic oomph than any of the Magnepans.  That's always been what's driven me away from Magnepan at the end of the day, they just don't rock.  I know we will have loyal Maggie fans that will squeal over this comment, but I've owned practically every Magnepan ever made and they just don't have the grunt of a great cone speaker.  The ML's come a lot closer.

But it is all very personal.  The Magnepans do what they do very well.

That's why I'm a big Tympani fan. My 1-D's rocked brilliantly in a medium-sized room, and were the best home theater speakers I've ever heard. The only time I ever remember them running out of steam was on the cannon shots on the Telarc 1812. I've never heard that from a single panel Maggie.

On the other hand, most people don't seem to listen at those levels. There was an interesting thread a while back on the Planar Asylum in which people posted the SPL's they listened at, and only one of us habitually listened at live acoustical levels. So I can understand why most people would be satisfied with smaller Maggies or even Quads.

Of course, dynamics can have even better bass extension and slam than the Tympanis, though I think that's less of an issue now that subwoofers are so common and I have yet to hear from a dynamic woofer the palpable realism of the Tympani midbass.

I look forward to listening to the Montis, that's quite a recommendation. If someone really can solve the dynamic/planar interface problem, or at least reduce it to tolerable levels, it will be great for space-challenged folks like me.

Regarding what Maggies do do well, I was impressed by what Jon Valin said in the latest TAS: ""The listeners for whom the 20.7's are very nearly ideal--for whom Magneplanars have always been ideal--are those seeking the absolute sound. These Maggies' magical ability to transport listeners to a different space and time and to there realistically recreate (with lifelike scope and size) the sound of acoustic instruments and the venue they were recorded in is extraordinary." I've always felt that way about them, and I've noticed that other people seem to respond the same way, as Steve Guttenberg pointed out in his 1.7 review. At that point I'm kind of lost, because in almost every parameter, I can point to another speaker that comes out on top. In a way, I'm coming to understand why Jon wrote his infamously puzzling 20.7 review, the one in which he points out that the 20.7's are exceed in each area by another speaker. It isn't so much I think that the Maggies do any one thing supremely (though the ribbon tweeter is still one of the best ever made, and the Tympani midbass), but rather that their performance is so beautifully balanced for acoustical music. At least that's my current theory, if you have a better one I'd love to hear it.

[TONEPUB]

The Tympani 1-D was my favorite as well, always regretted selling those...

I do agree that the 20.1's and 20.7's have always been good at reproducing size accurately thanks to the big panel area, but no better than the ML CLX or the big Sound Labs. (or the Wilson XLF, the Focal Grande Utopia or my GamuT S9's for that matter)

String quartets and Crosby Stills & Nash - yes.  Full scale orchestra or Metallica - sorry.  And I attend about 75 live shows a year.

I would be curious to know how many actual live performances Mr. Valin hears in a year though. 

[josh358]

The Tympani 1-D was my favorite as well, always regretted selling those...

I do agree that the 20.1's and 20.7's have always been good at reproducing size accurately thanks to the big panel area, but no better than the ML CLX or the big Sound Labs. (or the Wilson XLF, the Focal Grande Utopia or my GamuT S9's for that matter)

String quartets and Crosby Stills & Nash - yes.  Full scale orchestra or Metallica - sorry.  And I attend about 75 live shows a year.

I would be curious to know how many actual live performances Mr. Valin hears in a year though. 

In all fairness, Jon is a Tympani lover, too. He told me that he envies me my IVa's, but doesn't have a big enough listening room. (At least he has a room -- I have an optimistic closet.) And he did point out the 20.7's dynamic limitations in his review (and the CLX's as well, which scandalized Wendell, who points out that the 20.7's play louder). Those limitations probably won't bother most people, but only because they don't listen at realistic levels. I didn't really understand that until recently, when I saw those SPL measurements people posted online.

Agree that other large dipoles have a similar presentation to the Maggies. On the other hand, big multiway dynamics like the KLF always seem to me to create a pseudo-height effect, in which different frequency ranges can come from different heights, and the perceived height is the height of the driver or MTM array. With line sources I can sense the actual height of the instruments. I've never heard anything but line sources do that. As far as I know, that has either to do with the fact that they have no discrete floor bounce to override the floor bounce height cue, or that the HRTF can't localize the height of the drivers.

[medium jim]

Who would have thought Josh a play it loud headbanger!  Just for the record, I've been driving my 2.5's for the last couple of months with my ancient BGW 500D amp that has been worked on and have hit 110+ db's on few occasions and they didn't self destruct.

However, I much prefer them in the mid 90's.  My ears aren't as young as they used to be

Jim

[Rclark]

Interesting post from the Emotiva Forum.

I'd been recommending Maggies and Magnestands and this gentleman over there, who has never heard planars, goes into a Maggie Dealership and discovers he (and his girlfriend) greatly prefer the sound of the MMG to the 1.7. Interesting in that it comes from a fresh set of ears.


"Ok gang,

I went to the local Magnepan dealer today and spent some quality time with the 1.7 and MMG models. Nearly an hour and a half with each model, and I was in control of the volume and had brought in three different mix discs that were jam packed with every single "reference" or "torture test" track I could think of, and contained a fairly wide variety of music.

The source was a Samsung BD player, HDMI into a Marantz SR7005 receiver. Yes, you read that right, the dealer was powering Magnepans with a receiver. I was shocked to see this as well. That is, until I fired it up.

I have to admit that I have never heard a receiver that sounded as good as this Marantz model. I was VERY impressed by the amount of control, and clean, clear sound this little beast could produce. In fact, I felt the performance was so good, that I equated it to how a smaller (than my XPA-5) multichannel external amplifier would do. Super clean, and it could get loud without really breaking a sweat. In fact, I played both pairs of the Maggies to what I would consider to be "a lot louder than my average listening volume" and I never felt the Marantz' internal amplifiers were going to give up... and they never did.

When I was finished, I spent a bit of time discussing the Marantz with the dealer, and stated that I had never heard a better sounding receiver, he shared the same sentiment and stated that he never thought he would be powering Maggies with one.

Anyway, enough about the Marantz. This is about Magnepan speakers, but to be honest, I was so impressed by the Marantz' performance that I felt it should not be ignored in this "write up" of my thoughts. If you are looking for a receiver that can drive fairly hard to drive speakers (such as Maggies) I think this may be just the ticket!

First up was the Magnepan 1.7 models. These were the ones with the anodized aluminum frame (at least I believe that is what the dealer said it was). Having not really spent much time with any Magnepan models, I wasn't completely sure what to expect.

I popped in one of my mix discs and sat back with the remote in hand to have a listen. I had such a wide mix of things I listened to that I didn't take many serious "mental notes" about what I heard, but more, I listened to how they sounded in relation to what I am used to hearing with my XPA-1s pushing my 684s.

I liked what I heard with the 1.7s, but I did feel that something was a bit "off" sounding to me. I can't really explain what it is, but there was a bit of an odd "timbre" or "tonal" quality that is drastically different than what my B&Ws have. (I apologize for the vague vocabulary, but I find it difficult to put exactly what I heard in to words that make sense)

Also, I found the lack of bass slam quite alarming. With certain tracks, I have auditory "cues" I listen for when doing critical listening, and with the Maggies, some of these cues (in the upper frequency range) were presented in a very different way, or (in the case of some bass) not presented at all.

Don't grab your pitchforks just yet guys, as I did feel that in the areas where the Maggies do well, they do it better than what traditional box speakers can do. In fact, while listening to the 1.7s I was playing a track from Jack Johnson that I am VERY familiar with (Losing Keys from "Sleep Through the Static") and I was literally startled by what I was hearing. And I mean STARTLED!  I felt as if I had a physical reaction to it. I was sitting there with my new GF (who I have only been "officially" dating about a week now) and I almost jumped up in excitement and shock from being so wowed by the Maggies seductive (and that IS the proper word here) sound.

For those of you that own this CD, you will note that this track is very mellow and not "exciting" at all. The opening of the track features a well recorded electric guitar being ran through a tube amp with tremolo engaged. It has a strumming of a chord and then he lets it ring out and decay completely before strumming the next chord. I am not sure if it was the presentation of what I did hear, or the presentation of what I didn't hear as the notes faded into the black, but I assure you that it was moving in a way that I had never before heard. If you own this CD, you owe it to yourself to play this track at a high volume and listen to that amazing silence between those notes. Breathtaking. No hype, no exaggeration, just simply breathtaking!

Continuing on, I played several more tracks and came to Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" from her record "21". While I love this CD, I must admit that I haven't given it as much time in the player as I would like, due to the way my B&Ws handle her voice.

Adele has a powerful, and commanding voice IMO, and I always felt that my B&Ws just didn't give room to "breathe" as it should. I chalked some of that up to modern mastering techniques and too much compression being involved. On the 1.7s I felt that the compression had been lifted considerably, not completely, but certainly in a way that it allowed her performance to shine through as it should always have been. Nice, very nice.

With my love, Norah Jones, it was a similar experience, but to a lesser degree as her voice has a completely different tonal characteristic to begin with. Either way, I feel the compressed cabinet sound of my B&Ws was certainly out shined by the Magnepan's open, and airy delivery of female vocals.

Another test track I love to use (there are many and this review is already getting lengthy so I will try to be brief) is the Black Eyed Peas "Imma Be". This track was something of a hit or miss affair with the Maggies. First let me tell you the weakness. In a single word, it was bass. Imma Be is a bass driven electronic track that relies on that slam to add excitement and dynamics to the track. On the Magnepans, this slam was missing, and thus, so was some of the "fun" dynamic characteristic of this song, that I am used to.

On the other hand, I felt the strength of the delivery was in the upper registers. There is a synth part that kind of slides up and down a bit over the top of this song. When playing it at high volumes on my B&Ws it sticks out like a sore thumb, and becomes fatiguing and almost "irritating" to listen to. With the Maggies, it was smoothed out to the point that I actually had to listen for it, to even really notice that it was whirring away as always. Only this time, it was sitting nicely in the mix, not poking me in the ear drums. I was really liking the way the Maggies handled the higher registers of this slightly "hot" sounding disc.

I played a plethora of stuff through the Maggies and was generally impressed by what I heard. The areas I felt that really suffered was with bass or drum heavy music. At times, it felt like something was missing altogether, and some of the "fun factor" slipped away because of that.

In fact, with dubstep (Skrillex and Deadmau5) I thought the Maggies sounded boring and I became completely disengaged when listening to these types of tracks. Something that bothered me greatly, as I spend a lot of time listening to this type of stuff these days.

After about an hour and a half (roughly) with the 1.7s, I switched to the MMGs. First up was Norah Jones (mind you, we just listened to these very tracks on the 1.7s) and I was a bit shocked at how different these two speakers really are. Even my GF (who doesn't know the difference between an amplifier and a speaker) exclaimed that she noticed an immediate change in the sound when switching speakers.

Anyway, Nora came on and I was hit by a wall of beautiful, wonderful, and (I can't stress this enough) intimate sound. Holy planar magnetics Batman!!!   

Track after track, genre after genre, the MMGs were seducing me in a way I felt was nearly "magical". Detailed, clear, and (as my GF kept saying) beautiful.

I did feel that they were missing some of the dynamics I am used to hearing, but I chalked some of that up to the fact that these were inefficient speakers being pushed by a receiver, not average speakers being pushed by amplifiers with (seemingly) near endless headroom. 

Having said all that, end the end, I have to say that I actually preferred the sound of the MMGs to the sound of the 1.7s. I am not sure why, but I felt their "tonal presentation", coupled with their intimate sound was more pleasing overall to my ears.

This is certainly NOT meant as a slam to the 1.7s, as I said, when I heard Jack Johnson on them, I damn near heard a choir of angels.    They are VERY, VERY nice speakers, and if I had to live with them forever, I certainly could. I just liked the presentation of the MMGs even more.

When I had finished listening I was talking about my impressions and feelings with the dealer, and stated how I surprised with the stark differences between the two Magnepan speakers. His response was "Yeah, the MMGs aren't as revealing as the 1.7s and have more weaknesses".  I wasn't going to debate the guy, but I thought they were both very revealing, and that their weaknesses were exactly the same. Perhaps my ears aren't as well trained as his, or I am not sure of what to listen for, or the music I selected didn't really push the Maggies in a direction that would reveal what he had heard.

To finish up, I went home, checked my e-mail and Peter Gunn had responded to my inquiry about what models to select. He was asking me a series of questions (reminded me of Ronnie's {Roadrunner} line of questions when recommending speakers ). I haven't got back to him yet, but from what he has already said, and the follow up post from RClark (coupled with my listening experience at the dealer) I am leaning heavily toward some MMGs, and later adding a Rythmik sub (or 2) as they seem to be the perfect mates for Maggies.

In the meantime, I have two Emo ultra 12's to utilize. While I understand that these aren't Rythmiks, they are sealed, tight, and musical, so I think they will be a great "stop gap" in the meantime, should I ultimately decide to get rid of the B&Ws and "go for it".

I haven't decided 100% that I am going to do it, the un-involving sound of the maggies with certain genres (that I listen to a lot) are my biggest "sticking point". However, I believe that these negatives can be overcome with the Magnestand mod and adding a couple of Rythmik subs....I am not sure though, as I have not heard this setup. Nor have I listened to Maggies with a sub playing. "

[jtwrace]

Rclark

Can you provide links when you copy & paste from another site?

[josh358]

Who would have thought Josh a play it loud headbanger!  Just for the record, I've been driving my 2.5's for the last couple of months with my ancient BGW 500D amp that has been worked on and have hit 110+ db's on few occasions and they didn't self destruct.

However, I much prefer them in the mid 90's.  My ears aren't as young as they used to be

Jim

These days, I watch levels closely with a Rat Shack meter. I have an audiophile friend who has severe tinnitus and it's a good incentive to try to preserve the hearing I have left. Of course, when you're a kid, you don't need to worry about stuff like that, or at least you think you don't.

Another thing I'm noticing as my ears age is that they're less tolerant of loud noise. Just as your iris contracts when you're exposed to bright light, muscles in your ear attenuate the vibrations from very loud sounds. Hence the inability to hear for a while after you leave a rock concert. But I read not long ago that as you age, your ears lose their ability to accommodate. That could be another reason to dial back on the volume as we age.

According to Fielder, accurate reproduction of classical music requires 118 dB peaks, of acoustical jazz 127 dB peaks. Few consumer speakers can produce these levels -- something like a big Wilson might, and Satie gets 120 dB + out of his modified Tympani IVa's. See Fig 8:

http://www.zainea.com/Dynamic%20range.htm

Amplified music can of course be even louder. These days, they're supposed to limit SPL's to 120 dB, so figure about 130 dB for the peaks. Listening to rock at those levels will destroy your hearing over time. An orchestra might hit 118 dB at the climax of a Mahler symphony, but the average levels are much lower.

[medium jim]

Rclark

Can you provide links when you copy & paste from another site?

+1

Jim