2. speakers
  3. 128829-7080

Magnepan 3.7 - 3.7i owners need help please

Hello, I have owned a pair of Magnepan 3.6r's for quite some time. I was assured that the 3.7i's were a big step in sonic improvement over the 3.6r's. So, I went and bought a brand new pair of 3.7i's. Got them home, set them up, and have approximately 20 hours of play on them.

I am using the exact same equipment as I had with the 3.6r's which is a Sanders Magtech amp, a Benchmark 3 hgc dac, and the exact same decent quality cabling. The 3.6r's had a partial external crossover and I was bi-wiring. The 3.7i's do not have anything but a single pair of binding posts, so I am using the exact same speaker cable but not a bi-wire version.

What I have noticed it that they definitely do not have the depth, spatial characteristics, or openess of the 3.6r's. They do however have maybe a more predominant midrange but, at the sacrifice of the midrange being bloated or muddled at moderate volume levels. I have noticed that the 3.7i's have sort of a filter membrane behind the midrange section which my 3.6r's did not. Maybe a smaller rear dipole radiation pattern? The bass is also lacking compared to the bass response of the 3.6r's

The Dealer said they may need more break in to loosen the mylar. However if that were the case, the midrange would get worse, but thembass may get better. The passive crossovers may need some more break in time, but to be honest, i'm skeptical about all of it!

So, anyone out there that can offer some insight would be greatly appreciated. I am just a working class hero with limited financial resources. I cant afford to spend a large sum of money for something no returnable, and go backwards with disappointment. Needless to say I did not get much sleep last night. Might need a prescription for xanax at this point!
 Thanks, Steve.. 
sfrounds
hasse
230 posts
 

After 12 years with 3.6´s I switched to 3.7´s when they came out. I feel that the 3.6´s had more, slightly rounder bass but not as articulate as the 3.7´s. The 3.6´s could sound a bit weightier but also somewhat bloated in comparison. Makes me wonder why they released the DWM´s......... 

Better integration in 3.7 and I have not noticed anything about the depth, openess or the bloated midrange you mention. I have not heard the i-model with the tape behind the midrange (no tape on the 3.7)

sfrounds OP
35 posts
 
helomech, thank you for your response. Yes, placement is exact. I may have to wait the few hundred hours and see what happens. Possibly because they are different, they will require some change in position? Calling Wendell could not hurt.

Hasse,Thank you for your response as well, So glad to hear from someone who has had both, Did time/break in change the sound of your 3.7's? Mine sound, I guess, somewhat compressed compared to my 3.6's. I will call Wendell, and see what he says. That tape bothers me, but need to find out more about it. Thanks again
hasse
230 posts
 

Steve, the change is perhaps not as big as I had hoped, they still sound a bit leaner than the 3.6...if memory serves. The 3.7 sounds slightly different but not necessarily better, different strenghts and weaknesses.

When I asked Wendell about the tape he replied, "what tape" :) Please let us know what he sez.


Have you tried them with tweeters in?

stringreen's avatar
stringreen
6,468 posts
 
It may have been an upgrade in model number, but not worth the trouble.  You probably have to break the new ones in more to achieve their potential. Just enjoy the music and don't try to find flaws.  If something REALLY sticks into you THEN you ugrade.
gdnrbob
4,444 posts
 
+1 on breaking in. Your description of 'compression' definitely sounds like things need to break in.
I would let them play background music and not listen to them critically for a week, at least.
Do you still have the 3.6's?
Bob
More to discover