Magnepan 1.7 with Jl Audio F110 or Magnepan 3.7

jjay · « **on:** 13 Aug 2011, 02:33 pm »

I was wondering how my Magnepan 1.7 used with a JL Audio F110 sounds compared with Magnepan 3.7 used without a subwoofer. I have never heard the Magnepan 3.7 and am considered upgrading to them. The JL Audio F110 Fathom subwoofer blend perfectly with the Magnepan 1.7 IMHO. I also own a JL Audio F112 subwoofer/ML Vantage speakers in another system in another room. Anybody compared the 1.7 with a sub vs the 3.7 without a subwoofer?

rw@cn · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 02:53 pm »

From what I've heard you will probably still want a sub with the 3.7's. However if the 3.7 was available when I purchased my 1.7, I would have bought the 3.7 and waited until funds were available for a sub.

I am currently running my 1.7's but there are times when I feel a sub is needed.

SteveFord · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 08:52 pm »

I suppose it depends on your room and your listening preferences but I don't even bother with a sub for the 3.7s.
I did try the 1.7s with a sub downstairs but the soundstage was too small so back upstairs they went.
I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.

Rclark · « **Reply #3 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 10:24 pm »

I'm still a week away from buying MMG's and I'm struggling to wrap my head around... how DOES a planar make bass?

Sure? You've got "all that surface area", but there's no X-max! How can you possibly get any bass out of a panel that barely moves?

From what I understand, especially after the Magnestand mod, there's "lots" of bass, but I just can't comprehend how it's even possible to get any bass, even 200hz, from a flat panel.

SteveFord · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 11:03 pm »

Perhaps this will help some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magnepan_MG1.jpg

AUDFILE74 · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 11:12 pm »

i have heard jl subs with maggies before. in my personal taste i did not like the combo. the 1,7 is a speaker that is very revealing. i felt i heard a good deal of speed and resolution above it's pricpoint. . the f110 just did mot blend well. it had output. but it lacked topend extension and tightness. those two qualities are very important when it comes to matching with the 1.7.

jackman · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 11:22 pm »

Quote from: Rclark on 13 Aug 2011, 10:24 pm

I'm still a week away from buying MMG's and I'm struggling to wrap my head around... how DOES a planar make bass?

Sure? You've got "all that surface area", but there's no X-max! How can you possibly get any bass out of a panel that barely moves?

From what I understand, especially after the Magnestand mod, there's "lots" of bass, but I just can't comprehend how it's even possible to get any bass, even 200hz, from a flat panel.

It's funny because I wondered the same thing before I heard the 1.6's a long time ago. I assumed they would have good imaging, mids and highs but was not expecting the bass response to be good. I was wrong! The image was unlike anything I had ever heard, and the overall sound was amazing. Maggie sound is not everyone's cup of tea but I will always be a fan. The bass response was my biggest surprise. I don't know about any technical measurements but the bass coming from the 1.6's was deep and tuneful (not one note bass common with many lower end box subs). In fact, I don't care for regular subs with maggies (unless it's strictly for HT applications).

The bass is different than what you will get with a sub. It does not compress the room and give you chest thumping tactile feel of a large sub or several large subs but Magnepan bass is very good. Maybe not the best choice for HT but for music it is very good. For the money, I don't think there is a better speaker than the MMG. They give you a great sense of the Magnepan magic for a very low price. Just be warned, you may make you lust for higher models...

jjay · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 11:28 pm »

Quote

the f110 just did mot blend well. it had output. but it lacked topend extension and tightness.

As far as subwoofers I have tried, the JL Audio subwoofer were the tightest, most accurate subs IMHO and I also have a JL f112 sub. These subwoofers blend perfectly for me. I basically was interested if the Magnepan 3.7 speakers would give me the accurate low end I have without using a subwoofer. I prefer a sub with the Magnepan 1.7 speakers though.

TONEPUB · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Aug 2011, 11:32 pm »

I'm with JJay. I like the 1.7's with a sub. have had excellent luck with the JL F110, as well as the Martin Logan Grotto i. Currently switching from a Gotham to the In-Wall version of the Gotham.

I've owned magnepans on and off for 35 years now and I always go back to a sub.

jjay · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 12:52 am »

I am curious to swap the Magnepan 1.7 / F110 sub combination with my JL Audio F112 sub but it almost killed me to carry F112 around the house when it was delivered. Thank god for walk out lower level homes. I wouldn't want to try carrying a JL Audio F112 downstairs by myself. After delivery, JL audio tech support (Barry Ober- he is very nice and helpful also) asked me to perform the sub crawl method but I was too tired to move it to my listening position. I had to wait for help.

Rclark · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 01:29 am »

From what I understand the only way to fly with planars is a sub that behaves similarly , open baffle. So my choice will be Gr Research ob servo sub.

SlushPuppy · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 01:45 am »

I've read a lot of Magnepan loudspeaker reviews over the years and I've noticed that many owners are happy using Vandersteen subwoofers to provide the low-end. I thought I read somewhere that Vandersteen optimized one of their subs to work specifically with Magnepans, but I could be wrong.

I.Greyhound Fan · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 01:54 am »

Go for the 3.7's and forget the sub. The step up in sound and detail in the 3.7 is too great to ignore. And the 3.7's put out a lot more bass, plus you will love the detail of that fully ribbon tweeter. I had a chance to buy the 3.6's and balked at the price and went with the 1.6's, a decision I still regret today.

As far as Maggies and bass is concerned. Maggies produce nice tight deep bass but they are missing that nice thump that you get with a cone driver. You just dont feel the pressure that you get with a big cone driver. I have used a sub with my1.6's and found that it integrates well if I set the crossover of the sub to 40Hz which is at the bottom end of the 1.6's although I suspect mine go lower than that. I also keep the sub turned down to the point that I can barely hear it and then 1 notch lower. I really only want the sub to disappear and only deliver on really bass heavy or dynamic passages. Turning a sub up too loud or setting the cross over too high really causes integration problems with Maggies. But I guess sound is in the ears of the listener!

My local Maggie dealer pairs higer end REL subs and Velodyne servo subs with them and they sound great. By the way. The higher end servo controlled Martin Logan subs pair well with them as well.

http://www.martinlogan.com/products/depthi

Rclark · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 02:44 am »

my plan is to go with ob servo sub and cross it high so I can get some nice thump in the midbass and hopefully keep up with and integrate the Mmg. I want it all.

I.Greyhound Fan · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 03:34 am »

I also have a pair of MMG's and they have very good mid bass on their own and if you push them out to the corners of the room bass goes fairly deep, deeper than their rated 50Hz. I think that you will eventually find that you won't like the sound with the sub crossed high, it will sound muddy.

jjay · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 04:22 am »

Quote

Go for the 3.7's and forget the sub. The step up in sound and detail in the 3.7 is too great to ignore. And the 3.7's put out a lot more bass, plus you will love the detail of that fully ribbon tweeter.

The 3.7's were not out when I purchased the 1.7's.
The 3.7's only go down to around 40 hz., correct? I am not sure that would be adequate for my tastes. Has anyone noticed that the 3.7's have that much more detail than the 1.7 speakers?
I guess I am also trying to justify if the 3.7's are necessary when I am already am using a quality subwoofer with Magnepan 1.7's.

Photon46 · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 12:26 pm »

Jjay, another consideration that's not been mentioned is whether or not you've got a listening space with enough room for the 3.7's to perform well. I've seen more than a few pictures of 3.6's & 3.7's stuffed into rooms way too small. If you've got the room, the budget for the speakers, and the budget for an amp that will drive them well and be of high enough quality to show the best qualities of 3.7's, you'll not regret buying 3.7's. (Assuming having room dominating speakers the size of a small door don't bug you

) The business about the budget for the amp is no joke. I gave up on Maggies myself because I got tired of trying to find amps with enough current that also had the low level micro-dynamics and other subtleties that I wanted which I could afford. If you listen to rock, jazz, and other such genres, this might not be such a big issue. With classical music, I found 1.6 Maggies just didn't do the low level, barely there, micro-dynamic thing very well at all with any amp I ever found. It didn't help that the Magnepan dealer in my area had no interest in showing them to their best advantage and that he didn't have synergistic electronics to pair them with. So, I was left to my own devices to experiment, spend money, experiment, spend money.........

jjay · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 02:10 pm »

Quote

Jjay, another consideration that's not been mentioned is whether or not you've got a listening space with enough room for the 3.7's to perform well.

No problems with the size of the room. It is around 22' x 24' with 17' vaults. I am using a McIntosh MC252 amp currently with the 1.7's but uses every bit of the current. The MC252 worked great with my ML Vantages. Is the 3.7's less efficient that the 1.7's? Anyone try a 3.7 with a Mcintosh MC252 amplifier?

SteveFord · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 03:35 pm »

For that size room I think that the 3.7s will be more suitable.
The sound is pretty much the same there is just more of it - better low end, better highs, and a much larger soundstage which I think will be the main plus.
More detail? Some.
Efficiency is the same and you may find that you don't want a sub at all.
I had some stands made up for my 3.6s which were a bit bass-shy and they made a noticeable improvement on the low end.
The stands ended up being too effective with the 3.7s and they made the bass boomy so back it was back to those silly little feet.

TONEPUB · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 Aug 2011, 04:07 pm »

Quote from: I.Greyhound Fan on 14 Aug 2011, 03:34 am

I also have a pair of MMG's and they have very good mid bass on their own and if you push them out to the corners of the room bass goes fairly deep, deeper than their rated 50Hz. I think that you will eventually find that you won't like the sound with the sub crossed high, it will sound muddy.

Agreed there. If you want midbass thump, you shouldn't be buying MMG/s (or any Magnepan for that matter) The one thing the Magnepans probably do better than any speaker is their ability to offer up a clean, natural midbass. This is a tough task for all but the best cone speakers.

The MMG's are great little speakers but they won't play loud no matter how much power you have. When we had them in for review, I was using the Mac MC1.2kw's to drive them and they still wouldn't really rock out like the larger Magnepans. But at modest volumes they really are a great speaker.