[jhm731]

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue77/magnepan_3.htm

[Davey]

Oh for crying out loud.  The "i" version requires a $9000.00 amplifier upgrade as well??

This is just ridiculous. 

Dave.

[fridays]

I can't read the review, he changed pretty much everything in his system and can tell what the difference was...I stopped there
 

[*Scotty*]

Any good loudspeaker will tell you when you put superior sounding components up stream of it.
An improvement to a loudspeaker design offers the audiophile an excuse to buy more expensive components to feed the speaker system. To suggest that one MUST purchase a very expensive amplifier to go along with the new improved speakers is specious argument at best.
 The audiophile is a rationalizing creature rather than a rational one.
Scotty

[a.wayne]

Damn,  you guys can wreck a good story ........ 

[Davey]

Steve,

Here's a question for the Magnepan factory.
I know they won't provide a schematic, but maybe they could provide an impedance sweep of the 3.7 and 3.7i?  Maybe there's a clue to this mysterious requirement for a more (high) current amplifier that Scott Robertson felt necessary?

Cheers,

Dave.

[a.wayne]

The speaker comes with a 5 amp fuse for the mid, he must have had a toy driving it originally if it shut down on him without popping the fuse ...?

 Has anyone here tried the DWM bass panel ..?


Edit: yes he had a toy driving them before, I'm sure anything would have been more high current .....

[Davey]

Yeah, but he said his "toy" amp was driving the 3.7's fine......but then not the 3.7i.
I'd like to know what the difference is.  An impedance sweep might give a clue.
Am I the only one with intellectual curiosity here?? 

I imagine this will be like pissing into the wind asking Wendell, but what the hey.

Dave.

[SteveFord]

Question asked.
You'd really need to have the two versions of the speaker side by side to make any sort of meaningful comparison unless the difference was unusually dramatic. 

[Davey]

Thanks much Steve.  I'm talking about an audible/acoustic test, just a simple impedance sweep.

I have no doubt impedance traces will not be forthcoming, but it would be interesting to have a (possible) explanation on why an amplifier upgrade was deemed necessary in this case.  The transducer current requirement should be so the only explanation might be the creation of some sort of impedance dip relative to the original 3.7 crossover design.
There is also the possibility Scott Robertson screwed up his connection scheme. 
It appears he has zero technical background

Dave.

[SteveFord]

I'd say he just wanted to mooch some new equipment to play with.
He sounded a little choked up when it was repossessed.

[*Scotty*]

The first thing the reviewer tells you is that he got away with connecting in parallel a pair of DWM woofers and a pair of 3.7s to a receiver rated at 100 watts into an 8 ohm load with no rating in 4 ohms let alone a possibly 2 ohm load.
It wouldn't take much of a change to render his Integra receiver grossly inadequate.
 Its a miracle that he did not discover this fact before he hooked up the 3.7is.
Frankly, he also upgraded his electronics from mid-fi to High-end in one fell swoop. Its no wonder that HE considers the purchase of a really good amplifier a mandatory prerequisite for owning a pair of 3.7is.
 One can only imagine what he might have heard if the Modright gear had been in residence when the 3.7s were first delivered and then subsequently changed out for for the 3.7is.
Scotty

[Davey]

I'm surprised how many "reviewers" there are nowadays that have no technical chops at all.

But, I guess the 3.7i's were acceptable with the Rogue amp.....BUT only with power conditioning. 

I guess a good "reviewer" can rationalize anything AND sell advertisers product at the same time......all without a clue as to what he's doing. 

High-end audio at it's classic best. 

Dave.

[a.wayne]

Yeah, but he said his "toy" amp was driving the 3.7's fine......but then not the 3.7i.
I'd like to know what the difference is.  An impedance sweep might give a clue.
Am I the only one with intellectual curiosity here?? 

I imagine this will be like pissing into the wind asking Wendell, but what the hey.

Dave.

That amp could never drive a 3.7 fine,  it's why these reviewers waste reading time, most of them  seem to just be getting into hi-fi  and good sound. I would prefer for Wendel to show the measured FR with 2.83v @2M ...

[harri009]

Yes I agree, these reviews by people who are just starting out in audio are pretty worthless, who's hiring these people 

[Davey]

David Robinson. 

[SteveFord]

I swear, Wendell never sleeps.
Here you go:
The impedance of the 3.7 and 3.7i are identical. The 3.7i is slightly more efficient than the 3.7, but not enough to mention.

[Hasse]

I can't read the review, he changed pretty much everything in his system and can tell what the difference was...I stopped there

If I understand correctly he did not hear the 3.7 with the same amp/pre (ModWright) as he is using on the 3.7i?! 

[SteveFord]

I guess it's too late to retract the article and start over?

[Davey]

Identical impedance implies the crossover's are identical.  However, Wendell may not appreciate a fine-tuning difference that might have been made which would show up in a sweep.

Well, that's another to add to the very large number of questionable "reviewers" list. 

Thanks Steve,

Dave.