[andyr]

Hi Charles

After 12 years, we came out with the 1.7. The following year, we came out with the 3.7 (after 12 years). We understand the speculation that there will a successor to the 20.1 during CES 2012. But, what seems like a logical progression isn't necessarily so. We will not "sprinkle some magic dust" on the 20.1 and call it a 20.2 just to bolster sales. The 1.7 and 3.7 were selected in blind testing with their predecessors. The 20.1 is a tough competitor.


Wendell

Hehe, Wendell ... can I suggest what you should do to improve your flagship speaker, to make it into the 20.X.    Sure it will cost a bit more to make but I suggest you can recover an extra thousand or so in the retail price, which will justify this.  And it will make the speaker sound even better! 

Of course, you may well be planning to change to QR wire for the 20.2, to match the new ".7s"?  However, the speaker would still suffer from all 3 drivers being co-located on the one frame.  So my suggestion is ... you should have the double-magnet bass panel in one frame and the double-magnet mid panel + ribbon in a second frame ... ie. so you end up with a Tympani IVa-like speaker but with only one bass panel each side (except, of course, these bass & mid panels have magnets either side).

My suggestion is based on the sound of some Maggies which I have recently built up - my "Frankenpans".     I owned IIIas for 18 years and in the last couple of those years, wondered how I could improve their sound.  It seemed to me that there were 2 areas which must have a negative impact on the sound of the IIIas (and 3.Xs):

1.  The fact that the mid panel is on the same sheet of mylar as the bass panel and the clamping strip between them only stretches half way down - ie. not fully isolating the mid panel from the excursions of the bass panel, and

2.  All 3 drivers are attached to the one frame; this frame gets shaken around by the excursions of the bass mylar and so vibration is being imposed on the ribbon.

(I know you solved these problems with what was then your premium speaker, the T-IVa.  But I heard you dropped this model in the end because it had too high a manufacturing cost, compared to its retail price?  But in a sense, IMO, you then went "backwards" with the 20.1 because it has only one frame either side.)

Anyway, I thought that if I could create some Maggies which had identical-sized drivers to a IIIa but solved the above issues, I should end up with a "better-sounding IIIa"!     Each side of my Frankenpans consist of a 2.5 bass panel, in its own frame, and a T-IVa mid panel + ribbon in a separate frame.  So:
*  bass mylar excursion does not impact what the mid panel mylar is doing, and
*  no bass-panel vibrations reach the ribbon.

The result is a significant improvement over the sound of my IIIas - from what is, in effect, 3 drivers of exactly the same dimensions as IIIa drivers (in fact, the ribbons are identical).  I would describe the improvement as just what theory suggested - a much cleaner sound, like a picture gets sharper when you focus the lens better.  There is also one unexpected benefit ... because the bass and mid+ribbon frames are separate, I can "arc" them to achieve a time-aligned speaker.  (The centre of the bass panel and the centre of mid+ribbon panel are the same distance away from my ears and point directly towards them.)

So I suggest your premium speaker deserves to be separated into 2 frames each side, to extract the maximum from them. 

Regards,

Andy

[James Tanner]

Can we expect that the 20.2, whenever they're going to be launched, will not be able to bi-wire/bi-amp, just like the latest 1.7 and 3.7?

I'm thinking of bi-amping my 3.6 (with the Bryston gear, of course), and perhaps hoping I can upgrade to the 20.2 later one day.  It would be nice to keep those amps and crossover unit to use with the 20.2.   

Thanks.

Hi klao,

Discussed it with Wendell and the problem is there is no way to know. The 1.7 and 3.7 did not start out with the idea of not allowing biamp application but evolved in that direction as they found ways to improve performance over the previous models.

james

[James Tanner]

James, if you were to use a scale of 1-10. Where would the sound improvement of going to bi-amping say a 3.6? Also, got any scratch and dent sale, crossovers laying around?

Hi - I have found the biamp mode really provides better bass control and better transient response - I would give it a 4.  Email me at Bryston as  i know a dealer with a 10B sub trade in.

james

[andyr]

Hi - I have found the biamp mode really provides better bass control and better transient response - I would give it a 4.  Email me at Bryston as  i know a dealer with a 10B sub trade in.

james

Agree! 

Regards,

Andy

[TitaniumTroy]

Thanks for the reply James, so can you give us any insight you have setting up Maggies with room treatments like diffusors and absorption? What seems to be the most effective for performance, I am single so no WAF problem to consider. Regarding diffusors any thoughts on QRD vs the geometric type, any guros of acoustics, as to dipolar speakers do you know of?

Oh and thanks James to you and Wendell for taking the time to do this. 

[James Tanner]

Thanks for the reply James, so can you give us any insight you have setting up Maggies with room treatments like diffusors and absorption? What seems to be the most effective for performance, I am single so no WAF problem to consider. Regarding diffusors any thoughts on QRD vs the geometric type, any guros of acoustics, as to dipolar speakers do you know of?

Oh and thanks James to you and Wendell for taking the time to do this. 

I use to be an absorption guy but have lately gone towards diffussion.  There is no energy in the plane of the diaphram so I would use a reasonable reflective/irregular/diffusive surface behind the speakers only.

james

[pelliott321]

My feeling are that if one has 3,4,5 feet behind the panels and listening distance is 7 or 8 feet then too much absorption will take away from the openness, life like sound.  You do not want to destroy whats great about these speakers. 

[James Tanner]

Magnepan MG1.7 review with Bryston 4B SST2 amp.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue53/magnepan.htm

james

[josh358]

Thanks for the reply James, so can you give us any insight you have setting up Maggies with room treatments like diffusors and absorption? What seems to be the most effective for performance, I am single so no WAF problem to consider. Regarding diffusors any thoughts on QRD vs the geometric type, any guros of acoustics, as to dipolar speakers do you know of?

Just wanted to add that the general seems to favor diffusion behind the speakers, as James said, unless the speakers are too close to the front wall (e.g., less than three feet), in which case absorption may be better. Lateral first reflections aren't as much of a problem with dipoles as they are with monopoles because of the figure 8 radiation pattern, so treatment on the sides isn't usually needed (unless to correct a room problem like slap echo), but, depending on the angle of the speakers, a bit of absorption or diffusion at the first reflection points could have a sonic effect. Similarly, line sources either don't reflect much off the floor and ceiling or, at lower frequencies, actually use the floor and ceiling reflections to mimic longer line sources. So usually nothing is required there except for some carpet.

One exception might be people who listen to smaller scale works and want a more precise image rather than a big deep one. Then, absorption of the rear wave can be the best course.

This I think is one of the main advantages of dipole line sources -- you don't really have to treat the room much, if at all, to get them to sound good.

[James Tanner]

FAQ:

http://www.magnepan.com/faq

james

[pelliott321]

The problem with Manufacturers recommendations is they have to be careful what they say from a marketing point of view.  They are not going to say you need 1000 watts/ch and $2000 worth of diffusion/absorption products to make their speakers sound good.
Also am i just dumb at math but according to Mag FAQ they say distance away from walls should allow for a minimum of 10 millisec reflection.  at 1000ft/sec is that 10 feet?     

[rollo]

Hi Charles

Rant first:

I have been answering this question for 36 years. So, if this sounds like a recording, you will understand why-- We always tell our dealers first of any new models. You can imagine how they would react if they first heard about a new model from consumers. We have not announced any new models to our dealers.

End of "rant".

After 12 years, we came out with the 1.7. The following year, we came out with the 3.7 (after 12 years). We understand the speculation that there will a successor to the 20.1 during CES 2012. But, what seems like a logical progression isn't necessarily so. We will not "sprinkle some magic dust" on the 20.1 and call it a 20.2 just to bolster sales. The 1.7 and 3.7 were selected in blind testing with their predecessors. The 20.1 is a tough competitor.


Wendell

  Thanks for the answer. Agreed the 20.1 is a tough competitor. One of the best out there. If and when Magnepan decides to change the 20.1 we would be very interested.



charles

[James Tanner]

The problem with Manufacturers recommendations is they have to be careful what they say from a marketing point of view.  They are not going to say you need 1000 watts/ch and $2000 worth of diffusion/absorption products to make their speakers sound good.
Also am i just dumb at math but according to Mag FAQ they say distance away from walls should allow for a minimum of 10 millisec reflection.  at 1000ft/sec is that 10 feet?   

Hi pelliott

The distance would be 5 feet because the sound travels 5 feet back to the wall behind the speakers then 5 feet forward for a total of 10 feet as far as the listener is concerned

Also the tilt on the speakers as well as the angle will affect how 'reactive' the back wall is so generally I find 3 feet or more is fine in most setups I have tried depending on the amount of direct to reflected energy you want to hear at the listening position.

james

[pelliott321]

duh, I should have thought of that
Thanks
I have truncated corners behind my IIIa's and the inside edge of the panel is 54 inches from the parallel front wall and the center of the panel is 3 feet from the truncated part. So I feel I have enough space behind my speakers. 
I did the mirror thing and toed in the panels so that the outside edge pointed to the 1st reflection point but I am not liking that much toe in great center image and good placement of instruments but the image stops at the panels.  with less toe in I get a wider image.  BTW my ribbons are out
Center of my panels are 6 feet apart and I am 6 feet back

[rollo]

  The most affective tool we used to fine tune the position of the speakers was usiing the Sheffield / XLO disc. The out of phase track is quite affective for final positioning. When the sound appears to come at you from all around the room your done. A no brainer IMO. A small change in toe in can have a big effect. This disc just simplifies matters.



charles
 

[James Tanner]

I use a cut from 'Amused To Death by Roger Waters' - there is a dog barking at the opening of the cut on the right and a radio announcer on your left and if the setup is correct the images are off your left and right shoulder.



james

[andyr]

I use a cut from 'Amused To Death by Roger Waters' - there is a dog barking at the opening of the cut on the right and a radio announcer on your left and if the setup is correct the images are off your left and right shoulder.



james

Aah, James, but if you read this article:
www.positive-feedback.com/Issue18/waters.htm

... you will see that the best setup gives you thunder rolling all round the room - which I must say I certainly can't get! 

Regards,

Andy

[James Tanner]

Hi Andy,

Yes the thunder is all around the room but the first cut was the one I was referring too - the Ballad of Bill Hubbard

james

[josh358]

I did the mirror thing and toed in the panels so that the outside edge pointed to the 1st reflection point but I am not liking that much toe in great center image and good placement of instruments but the image stops at the panels.  with less toe in I get a wider image.  BTW my ribbons are out
Center of my panels are 6 feet apart and I am 6 feet back

Not surprising, because as little as we may like to admit it, in the absence of crosstalk cancellation image spread beyond stereo speakers is an artifact of side wall reflections.

[James Tanner]

Hi Josh,

I believe the recordinngs listed above were specifically recorded using phase manipulating to product a 'surround' effect from the use of only 2 speakers?  So if the speakers are set up correctly the images should extend well outside the edge of each speaker. 

I have heard the recording I mentioned above in very large rooms where first relection issues are not a concern and the images are still way beyond the edge of each speaker and extend far up the side wall.

I will agree though that some use a 'strong' side wall reflection to create phantom images not originally in the recording

james