[SteveFord]

A bit even further off topic but this has an interesting bit about capacitors:

http://www.stereophile.com/tubepreamps/305cj/index.html

[Rclark]

Beat me up, what? Very familiar with cap break in, all my capped gear is massively upgraded. What I was refering to is the panel needing break in. Only thing I could think of making a "flat, uninvolving sound". Of course, the amp matters too.

I've got Jupiter beeswax bypassed with Mundorf Silver in Oil in my speakers. A very nice capacitor mix on these speakers. $300 just for that option and that's just parts cost only for the caps.

[josh358]

So true.  Buying a more powerful amp may be a cheap solution, but it does not improve the situation really.  I'd like to see one of the tests like those published by SoundStage done at the NRC of power compression.  They call it "deviation from linearity"

http://www.soundstageav.com/speakermeasurements.html

See the Janszen model 1 as an example:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/janszen_model_one/

I'd like to see one too. I assume the ribbons don't compress much, since the field is essentially linear and the ribbon itself . The only measurements I know about are JLindborg's measurement of a Tympani woofer panel, he found that it started compressing at IIRC 103 dB, which is roughly where you start to see compression in the typical dynamic woofer. Satie has measured 120 dB SPL's on his Tympani IV woofers, driven by a 2500 watt amp.

Interesting that the Janszen craps out at 90 dB above 15 kHz. They don't say what amp they're using, but I'm speculating that it's a swept measurement and the protective circuitry in the amp is kicking in because of the low impedance at the high end, rather than a problem in the speaker itself.

[Davey]

Josh,

It's using the built-in amplifier.  (It's mentioned in the notes at the top.)

It is an interesting anomaly though.  Makes you wonder about the reason, but I suspect you're correct and it's probably some sort of protective circuitry issue.

Cheers,

Dave.

[josh358]

You guys must be smoking something that's still not legal in my state.

A few years ago, I spent $200. bucks to fly over to the my "local" dealer to hear the 1.7s.

In spite of being driven by the big Bryston monos, the sound was flat and uninvolving.

As a past T-1D owner, I'd love to go back to Magnepan(3.7s or 20.7s) but at low levels they still don't
cut it.

Magnepan's "core beliefs" use to be SOTA with the Tympani speakers, IMO, Wendell has lead them astray.

Most hi end audio companies are trickle down, not trickle up.

As a long time Tympani owner, I'd love to see a new one myself and my own instincts agree with yours -- there should be a higher end model at the top of their line. But in fairness to Wendell, he didn't originate Magnepan's core beliefs, Jim Winey did. Jim's original goal wasn't just to make great sound, but to make great sound at a price that everyone could afford, and to this day he believes passionately in it.

For Magnepan, it's never just a question of whether something is state of the art, and it isn't a matter of trickle down. Which makes them different from other audio companies. Their technology is just as likely to trickle up, as it did from the 1.7 to the  3.7 to the 20.7. I think we personally have a lot to owe to that philosophy, although it won't fill everyone's needs.

Also, as director of marketing, Wendell has to consider the pros and cons of every potential new model. This inevitably involves a wide variety of concerns, not just brand identity but potential sales, availability of dealer floor space, and whether a given approach is best for the customer in light of current technology. Sadly, in a way, it isn't just a matter of making a good product. A lot of it has to do with customer perceptions and practical factors from wives to cats.

So this was just a concern that Wendell happened to mention along with others, some of which I mentioned above, when I asked him whether there was going to be a new Tympani. There are a lot of inputs to the equation, and a lot of people involved in the decision, which will ultimately be made by Mark after he's solicited the opinion of others in the company.

[kevin360]

Jim's original goal wasn't just to make great sound, but to make great sound at a price that everyone could afford, and to this day he believes passionately in it.

Now, that's what I really love about my Maggies! I could afford to buy them. There are some other speakers that I'd love to own, but not on a blue collar salary. Magnepan hasn't forgotten their core values. Who can argue with great sounding planars that common folks like I am can afford?

[medium jim]

As a long time Tympani owner, I'd love to see a new one myself and my own instincts agree with yours -- there should be a higher end model at the top of their line. But in fairness to Wendell, he didn't originate Magnepan's core beliefs, Jim Winey did. Jim's original goal wasn't just to make great sound, but to make great sound at a price that everyone could afford, and to this day he believes passionately in it.

For Magnepan, it's never just a question of whether something is state of the art, and it isn't a matter of trickle down. Which makes them different from other audio companies. Their technology is just as likely to trickle up, as it did from the 1.7 to the  3.7 to the 20.7. I think we personally have a lot to owe to that philosophy, although it won't fill everyone's needs.

Also, as director of marketing, Wendell has to consider the pros and cons of every potential new model. This inevitably involves a wide variety of concerns, not just brand identity but potential sales, availability of dealer floor space, and whether a given approach is best for the customer in light of current technology. Sadly, in a way, it isn't just a matter of making a good product. A lot of it has to do with customer perceptions and practical factors from wives to cats.

So this was just a concern that Wendell happened to mention along with others, some of which I mentioned above, when I asked him whether there was going to be a new Tympani. There are a lot of inputs to the equation, and a lot of people involved in the decision, which will ultimately be made by Mark after he's solicited the opinion of others in the company.

Funny thing is that Magnepan continues to win awards, accolades and golden ears to go with the best value in whatever price point they compete against.  It would be rather easy to dress them up like expensive furniture and charge 3x or more and they would find an audience, but as you aptly note, Jim Winey hasn't sold out to the deep pocketed in our hobby and has remained true to their core beliefs of bringing amazing speakers that most can afford and build a system around. 

Never have I been around a group that is so loyal to their speakers as are Magnepan owners who tend to become lifers.

Jim

[SteveFord]

Value for money:
I just read the current Editor's Picks issue of TAS and they chose the Mini Maggie System, MMG Revised, 1.2, 1.7, 3.7 and 20.7.
That's unprecedented.
The entire workforce at Magnepan should be very proud of their accomplishments.

I'm happy to say that there were also two Martin Logan models and a Quad to round out the planar selection.

[jhm731]

Value for money:
I just read the current Editor's Picks issue of TAS and they chose the Mini Maggie System, MMG Revised, 1.2, 1.7, 3.7 and 20.7.
That's unprecedented.
The entire workforce at Magnepan should be very proud of their accomplishments.

I'm happy to say that there were also two Martin Logan models and a Quad to round out the planar selection.

I'm looking forward to hearing the new Quad ESL-2812s.

[Rclark]

Now, that's what I really love about my Maggies! I could afford to buy them. There are some other speakers that I'd love to own, but not on a blue collar salary. Magnepan hasn't forgotten their core values. Who can argue with great sounding planars that common folks like I am can afford?

Magnepans aren't even that cheap. For the price of the MMG, most people would say you are crazy to spend that much on a speaker, let alone over 10 or 12 grand for the 20's. That's a lot of cheese.

Let's not go overboard, they aren't exactly cheap and cheerful, especially when you consider that you have to step up in amp quality to get the most potential.

[*Scotty*]

Cheap is a relative term, when you look at what the prices of loudspeakers have done in the last decade, even the most expensive maggie is a good value for the performance that it delivers.
Scotty

[kevin360]

Magnepans aren't even that cheap. For the price of the MMG, most people would say you are crazy to spend that much on a speaker, let alone over 10 or 12 grand for the 20's. That's a lot of cheese.

Let's not go overboard, they aren't exactly cheap and cheerful, especially when you consider that you have to step up in amp quality to get the most potential.

I didn't say they were cheap – you did. So, why are you suggesting that I should rethink my position that Maggies are cheap? I referred to them as affordable, and they are. The MMGs were the least expensive speakers I had purchased (in raw, not adjusted dollars) in over two decades. They didn't force me to buy an amp; they 'forced' me to build a dedicated room for their larger brethren and a worthy system to feed and support them (the 3.6s, then 3.7s).

My friend, I've blown past the 50 mark and I'm trying to slow down and smell some roses. As they say; you can't take it (money) with you, so I parted with some. In neither system are the speakers the primary investment. Heck, my MMGs are being driven by an integrated amp that is 6 times their cost – in such a context, the MMGs really were cheap. There is a subwoofer beneath each MMG that costs 1.5 times that of the pair of MMGs – and there are 2 of them (making the MMGs significantly cheaper than my subs). Of course, I invested further in the MMGs by way of implementing a series of upgrades (they've been static for a while – I'm very happy with them as they are) - I have more invested in the upgrades than the initial product.

The indirect path (briefly through 3.6s – on which I lost money) to my 3.7s made them more expensive than their price, but I still consider them an incredible bargain. No, they weren't cheap, but I certainly wasn't implying that they were. They are reasonably priced – within reach of someone who made his living repairing equipment. To me, cheap has an ugly connotation. Walmart sells some awfully cheap stuff – I don't want it.

Let's not lose sight of the cost of the music. Crap, I probably have $40k invested in media - records, cassettes, reels, CDs, DATs, HiRez FLAC downloads, etc, and I keep buying more. We're nutcases! We love to listen to music. When I was young, with a head full of ambition, I intended to make a life out of music – as a professional musician (but that wasn't in the cards).

I'm not going overboard about the affordability of Maggies. Consider the cost of 2nd hand Maggies, and there are some wonderful speakers that hit the used market – yours, for instance (I believe you said that you purchased them from a violinist (something to that effect)) – which makes then an even greater bargain. That's what I implied - they are great value for the money. I didn't and won't call them cheap, but they certainly aren't expensive and they are cheerful in the extreme!

[Rclark]

great post 

[medium jim]

Yes it was...

Jim

[kevin360]

great post 

great reaction 

You could have taken the beginning of my post the wrong way.

[Rclark]

That was great writing there, lately people here are too reserved and don't really discuss the hobby outside of impedances and oxygen free copper. 



...sitting here temporarily with a blown sub amp (and will not be using my ported 10", it just doesn't integrate the same), and really getting back into that mesmerizing Maggie 2.0 sound. As nice as it is when the sub is running, there is something extra special about Maggie's on their own with good power. The sound is just so coherent, it really is like wrapping your room with headphones, the bass is just a thing of beauty, and more than enough to not really need a sub at all...

For those who have ever had a bad experience with these I suggest visiting someone who has them in his system and enjoys them a lot. Because if that person is enjoying them a lot, means they're set up right. Go listen to those... and you'll understand why we love these big panels. There's nothing else like it. If you've been listening to box speakers for a long time, give yourself a couple hours to get accustomed to the totally different presentation, close your eyes, and it will all make sense.

[josh358]

Was this the only and main reason why Apogee gone?
It was also because they couldn't get back when they were on the court because they copied something they really didn't used or needed to!

That's what I used to think too, but there's a web page somewhere (Graz's site?) with an explanation from a guy who actually worked at Apogee about why they went out of business. According to him, anyway, it wasn't the Magnepan suit. Rather, they had very high warranty repair costs because IIRC the midrange ribbons were failing within the warranty period, and the Grand cost too much to make. So when they were taken over the new owners decided the company wasn't worth salvaging and closed it down.

[josh358]

I can certainly understand Magnepan's goal to sell high quality audio products at affordable prices.

Having said that, if they're not using Neodynium magnets, I don't understand why the 20.7s cost $8K more than the 3.7s.

Does anyone know of a dealer that has 3.7s and 20.7s on display?

For one thing, the bass and midrange drivers in the 20.7 cost a lot more to make, because they use dual magnets, one on either side. Manufacturing them apparently costs more than just the extra cost of a second magnet assembly.

[josh358]

Funny thing is that Magnepan continues to win awards, accolades and golden ears to go with the best value in whatever price point they compete against.

Impressive, isn't it? I think part of that is the basic technology -- apparently, the costliest item in a conventional speaker is the cabinet, and magnepan avoids that, as well as the need for esoteric components and complex mechanical assemblies. But part of it is their philosophy. They're always thinking in terms of value and they won't put anything in their speakers unless it's shown to improve sound quality in a blind test. Even then, they rule out of a lot of possibilities because of cost.

[SteveFord]

Thanks, Josh, I didn't want to go from memory about the construction of the 20.series as opposed to the other models.
I was 99% sure about the dual magnets but was afraid of putting out misinformation.