WC,
You asked, "how come you didn’t keep the Merrill since you like them so much?"
Answer--thezaks is on the right track. He is an astute reader. I will let you reveal your comparative findings on the Gryphon and Merrill 118 first. I don't want to bias your followers until you present the Merrill and Gryphon with these Maggies. Nobody else has done this, and I appreciate your work. I like how sometimes you present components as #1, #2, etc., so as not to bias us. I wish you would demonstrate an A/B of the Sim with the Merrill also, since the Sim is sanely priced and offers great value.
|
Sim is gone but I can assure you it will make a return down the road. |
Wonderful sound with Dag at present. I'm not sure from the picture of the 3.7i, but it appears that they are toed in too much. If you were sitting 6 feet away, then the toe in looks right, with the midpoint of the midrange/bass panels crossing over at your head. Actually, if there are separate midrange and bass drivers (too bad the website doesn't have much technical info, unlike they used to), I recommend taking the midpoint of the midrange panels and aiming them to your head. This will clear up any midrange congestion you may hear. And please don't use any resistors on the tweeter or midrange panels, which remove information and take away brilliance.
Since you sit 10 feet away, decrease the toe-in as above. Please continue to use the 3.7i for consistency, and because they are more revealing of amp differences than the DAW. If you do all this tonight, and it will really be easy and quick, I promise you that you will be up ALL NIGHT with joy. You ain't seen nuttin' yet!!!! I hope you don't have a busy day at work tomorrow.
|
Not terrible but sounded pretty congested to me, especially from middle of midrange downward, and I guess if you are okay with music that doesn't go below 50 Hz then these are fine but otherwise pretty lacking in bass. I can definitely hear that congestion that you referred to in the video, WC.
Missing the DAW's already....but let's see if the 3.7i's can improve...
Agree not a good pairing with the Dag. Stick with the Gryphon I think. |
This is the beauty of this hobby:.
to try new offerings and see what they do or don't do. I'll repeat myself again: the 3.7i is a 6300 dollar speaker.... You can't expect the performance of a 38k speaker. 38k divided by 6300 is 6.03 which means 6 times more expensive so it is like comparing the 15k luxman 900u to a 90k pair of constellation monoblocks.. |
Give me the combination of DAW and 900u over the combination of Constellation and 3.7i any day, at half the total cost! |
As good as the 900u is, it is no constellation centaur 2 Monos... And this is coming from me who has been praising the 900u amp all over.
Also, the 3.7 would squash a ton of speakers under 20 MSRP. I was actually thinking to myself WHY would anyone buy the following speakers over a magnepan 3.7i: (I’ve pretty much heard or owned these brands)
-Focal sopra 2 or any model under
-Sonus Faber Olympica 3
-Magico A3
-Magico s1
-Martin Logan 13a or any model under
Focal kanta
I personally would never own any of the speakers above over the magnepan 3.7i but that’s me. However, some people have space issues but sonically none of the speakers above come close to the magnepan 3.7i other than perhaps better bass.
That said....don't be surprised if I shock some people soon enough...only I know what I have up my sleeve...
Lastly, why doesn't everyone think like this instead: " damn..I can't believe the drastic difference in sound quality when going from a 37k speaker to a 6300 speaker " ?
Now, and for those of you who love Wilsons , what do you think I felt when I went from my neoliths to a Wilson ?? Don't you all think I also was feeling the same you all feel ? Of course I did...I can easily hear the difference when going from a 80k speaker to a 37k speaker. It almost sounded as if I was listening to bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer but over time your hearing gets used to it and you don't notice it...
|
I think the answer to your question WC is that 99% of people try to keep improving their system over time, always trying to move forward, and each time a change is made to their system it really is a binary question to be asked of did I move forward or backward?
You don’t necessarily approach that way, as you’ve explained.
Your style of review presentation is also much different from mag reviews or other YT reviews where they really just focus on the component being reviewed (maybe only mentioning surrounding components).
By contrast your vids always show entire system. We can see what changes over time. Even your declarations (“addition to the family” EG) conjure up system level thinking rather than component level thinking. All of which is good , I think.
So even though you review a lot of components, because of the familiarity you’ve built, in a lot of ways it still feels like we’re watching a system evolve. Again, which is good.
And thus, I think natural to assess whether system is improving over time or not, like we do with our own systems at a slower pace. But the difference is if we make our own systems worse, we typically immediately change back, if possible. |
For me, if the system goes back I don't panic. I simply learn from it and play while I tweak here and there. I don't expect the 3.7i to turn into 20.7s regardless of what amps or components I use. I simply want to see how far they can evolve and then figure out my next move. I see it as a learning experience so I can use it going forward. If the 3.7i don't work for me then I'll have notes as to why that is the case and share these with you all in the event that someone wants to buy 3.7i. I'll be able to talk about my personal experience with them and that is what counts. Don't panic, let's ride this out and see where we can take things. |
WC,
Unfortunately, you cling to your belief that a cheaper piece cannot surpass the performance of a more expensive one. Except for deep bass, Maggies in the 3 series surpass the performance of probably all dynamic cone/dome speakers regardless of price. Come on, admit it. At the same time, the ML Neolith is a poorly designed electrostatic, whose overall clarity is likely inferior to the much cheaper ML CLX, although again, the CLX is deficient in bass. Even though I haven't heard either the Neolith or the Wilson DAW, I respect the design of the DAW for a conventional dynamic speaker and venture to say that its clarity exceeds the much more costly Neolith.
Huge panels, especially curved, are flawed designs because they create midrange bloating/less focus and HF smearing, so the only thing that the Neolith excels in is bass. Having heard the original Maggie 3 in 1985, and the original 20 a while later, and then the 3 and 20 in the same room, I can say that the 20 excels in the bass, but the 3 has greater clarity and focus. If someone prioritizes bass and fullness, then the 20 is better for him, but if someone can accept 35-40 Hz bass, then the 3 is better. This has nothing to do with money, although the 20 is more expensive because of more materials. For people with very small rooms, the new Maggie LRS for $650 may be the best Maggie product for their needs, which may work better than the 3.7i for them. Nothing to do with money, since both LRS and 3.7i are each outstanding values and outperform most very expensive speakers on an absolute basis, except for deep bass and crazy loud SPL's.
|
Didn’t WC just say in this thread that he’d pick Magnepan 3.7i over Magico (A and even an S! - that’ll probably rankle some feathers), Focal below $20k-ish, Martin Logan below $15k-ish?
(I may not have these prices exactly right but the point is the same)
WC is not at all in the trap of more expensive always better - he just stated something that completely disproves that allegation.
For the record, I don’t disagree about the insane value of the 3.7i. As I said, when I went through my speaker search I extensively auditioned (demo’d at dealers for at least a half-hour to hour each, sometimes multiple hours) over 20 different speakers under $10k msrp. I’d have to look back at my notes but I had the 3.7i as 3rd or 4th. Much better than some that were much more expensive, like Paradigm Persona and Bowers 804d3. That is consistent with WC saying it’ll beat many in its class. I settled on Spendor D7 (nearly exact same msrp as 3.7i), which for me were the best under $10k; I think I had Dynaudio 2nd and probably 3.7i third. It was 18-ish months ago. |
Hmmm. Last video: to me the singer's voice lacked depth, fullness, richness, whatever you want to call it, but perhaps that's how the recording sounded... |
@twoleftears have to agree last video didn’t sound anywhere near as good as many of the previous ones. No magic to the music, no depth and no richness as you have stated. |
|
|
Viber, maybe you feel that way about the Maggie’s and that’s fine. We all know everyone has different preferences. I don’t think jay has given us any reason to doubt that he’s giving anything but his honest opinion during his reviews. Reviews don’t always end up with my favorites on top either. And I dont always buy products that end up on top, but I buy what I think best suits my likes. There’s no real right or wrong, it’s what’s most right for you. |
I agree with twoleftears and rsf507 regarding the last video. Might have been the music? Will be interesting with the new microphone.
Dave
|
WCSS - keep having fun. I admit your ability to fund and keep trying things has to be a blast, though tiring at times!
I am surprised with the Maggies in that you have tended to like dynamic speakers that can both play loud and have a bit of slam. If you listened to vocals etc all the time, I would see the Maggies possibly playing a role, though your Neoliths were true end-game speakers. The crap about them being poorly designed is just that, crap. It's more having a big enough room with them. Hearing them at shows, in bigger rooms with proper amplification - true, life like concert experience. Wilson DAW, outstanding speaker. Thank GOD they went to that scanspeak soft dome tweeter. Huge upgrade in the Wilson line-up. Sure, you can add a sub to the maggies, but I would still rather have a big, full range speaker that I didn't have to try and get the sub integrated just right.
WCSS - everyone likes to give you suggestions... if you can ever find some of the big, ATC speakers on a good deal you may really dig them. But, their powered speakers are where the real magic is at, and that kind of takes away the fun you have cycling through every high-end up on the planet!
Good to see others on this thread (Viper, here's looking at you, though loved the role in Top Gun), it never ceases to amaze me the amount of absolute BS you love to throw out here regarding components and systems you have NEVER HEARD. Loved the zip cord suggestion though.
Fonzie himself would be proud of this thread. I do love that WCSS is having a blast, I would be also! |
|
roysq, Nobody can possibly hear all the speakers out there. Even if you found friends or dealers with everything, they may not be set up ideally. The only way to truly know is to set up an individual pair for yourself in your own room. All this is totally impossible to do. But having a good theoretical understanding helps to weed out poor designs. I have not heard the Neolith, but I have heard the flaws in other large panels like Sound Labs. The worst speaker I ever heard was a huge flat panel Dayton Wright electrostatic about 4 feet square. That was in 1981, and frankly I was puzzled why, since I love the electrostatic concept. Then my experience with other large panels having similar muddy midrange and HF got me thinking. I found small stat panel speakers, and they had better precision, although less dynamic potential for loud SPL's. If you understand the frequency radiation patterns of capacitive microphones (stat speakers in reverse) off axis, and similar responses of stat speakers off axis, and then do a summation of on-axis and off-axis sounds coming from all parts of the large speaker diaphragm, you realize that the larger the panel, the worse the purity due to summation smearing. Any large speaker will sound better in the large room than a small room. However, multipath summation smearing will still be applicable in the large room. A correct time-aligned dynamic speaker like the Wilson can sound superior in clarity and everything else to a huge panel speaker, even though the low mass electrostatic/ribbon/planar magnetic driver is capable of more purity than the higher mass dynamic driver. The problem is design implementation. The Maggie 3.7i is a superb implementation that is the right size for most rooms, where its low mass diaphragms outperform the higher mass Wilson. The larger Maggie 20.7--I don't know whether the Wilson will beat it for clarity--maybe, maybe not. |
WC, Good luck with your external microphone. In my recording experience, it is very difficult to really capture the live spatial experience as well as the clarity. There are tradeoffs. Many commercial recordings with lots of spatial content are deficient in clarity because they have a distant perspective. Other recordings are upfront and immediate with fantastic impact and clarity, but everything sounds forward on the stage. The tonal character of microphones vary as much as speakers, because a mike is really a speaker in reverse. You might have fun as a recording engineer due to all these possibilities, but for youtube recordings on typical poor computer playback systems, it is not worth all the trouble. The weakest link is the computer playback system. That said, I still find your present setup useful for demonstrating some differences. |
roysq -
It's viber6, not viper. For some reason, folks like to come back to viber6 with personal jabs, rather than discussion regarding viber6's speculation.
Dave
|
Maybe Jay can hook up a laptop and play his YouTube video through the Mags. Then YouTube that and give a live blow by blow report on the comparison, what's there and what's missing, on another YouTube post. Now that would be really interesting! 😋 |
Maybe be even AB the two mikes, if there's any interest. A question that only Jay would be qualified to answer, for sure. |
kren,
I agree with you that WC says he is finding superb performance in the 3.7i that exceeds in most ways other speakers up to $20K. But why stop at $20K? And then he says, "I can easily hear the difference when going from a 80k speaker to a 37k speaker. It almost sounded as if I was listening to bookshelf speakers with a subwoofer but over time your hearing gets used to it and you don't notice it..." The fact is that anyone can easily hear the difference when going from a big Klipschorn to a $37K Wilson. But the K-horn is only about $15K, and for big/dynamic sound it kills the $80K Neolith as well as the $37K Wilson. The Neolith is still a hybrid dynamic/electrostat which has certain qualities that the K-horn doesn't have. My example here is not to glorify the K-horn, but to show that a speaker must be evaluated on its merits of design and ultimate sound quality, not on how much money it costs. Just show me a $500K dynamic speaker that exceeds the clarity and naturalness of the $6K Maggie, even if it has much bigger sound with 20 Hz bass. You can add a $10K or less DSP powered subwoofer to the Maggie and then beat the uber expensive speaker at everything.
|
Uh, ok???
I’ve never heard Neolith or Klipschorn but have never cared for the sound of any of the Klipsch speakers that I have heard (LaScala, Cornwall, Forte) so not sure what to say about that.
You will disagree but I say the DAW has better clarity than the 3.7i strait up, having heard them both in the same room. That is what I heard, in addition to being better at nearly every other facet. But WC doesn’t want us to spend time arguing about a 6k speaker vs a 30k speaker, so I will try to honor that request. |
WC, have you tried X350.8 ? Thoughts ?
|
Please read the thread. There is plenty of info on this amp here. |
|
Stay tuned for tonight's video. I am going to review my Gryphon Colosseum. Wrapping up my notes as i type this. |
grey9hound,
Good and helpful post your provided for smodtactical!
Dave |
Thanks, WC. I look forward to your Gryphon review, which will probably be without music so you can get credit on youtube. Then do the review of the Merrill, and maybe next week present the 3.7i playing music with both Gryphon and Merrill. That should be a sonic treat. You have already video'd the Wilson with Gryphon and a little with Merrill. Did you adjust the 3.7i toe-in from my suggestions?
|
I have heard the 3.7 vs some other speakers mentioned. I don't agree at all with viber6's assessment of electrostatic speakers. But, we just agree to disagree. I have heard many speakers directly compared to certain electrostatics and unless you have done that in the same system, you really can't tell. you are going by memory.
example. the very first really high end speaker I heard was Snell Type As. Wow. But, that was a long time ago. I bet if I heard them today, they would sound wonderful, but up against some others today, maybe lacking in some ways? I would love to grab a pair anyway. The memory is amazing. Same with Goldmond (spelling), Apologues (again spelling). That was an absolutely amazing speaker I heard way back at Christopher Hansen in LA.
Also, WC has not heard many of Martin Logan's previous offerings enough to make the statement that anything under (I read prior to the 13a) is not at good as the 3.7. That directly contradicts his logic of if you haven't heard it, you can't comment.
I've heard the 3.7 directly A/B versus the Monolith III with Krell KBX electronic crossover and it wasn't a contest. Don't get me wrong, the 3.7 are especially nice. But, no. Also, you've never heard the Martin Logan Statement 2 speakers. in a word, wow!
continue on with the evaluations. It is interesting to follow, and the knowledge and experience here is very good
enjoy |
Thanks guys I didn't know about the filter user option that makes things easier.
|
|
Impressive rating for the Gryphon!
Random thought while the DAWs are unplugged and we wait for them to return:
Is it just me or does the side profile of the Sasha DAWs remind anyone else of the Jawas from Star Wars episode IV? Ever since I saw the speaker I have thought that. Couldn’t remember what they were called (originally thought sand people) and had to look it up.
I’m pretty sure that I am the first to make this amazing discovery : )
|
If I rated the Gryphon 86 and the simaudio 73, luxman 72 then do the math:
73/86 = 84%
72/86= 83%
That is SPOT ON in my book. I am actually SHOCKED now that I think about it. |
I like how you are keeping in mind the ratings you gave the previous amps when assigning current grade. That will be important for consistency of grading. And it’s fun to hear the comments comparing the amps |
Merrill audio 118s with Christine preamp and DAW WILL SHOCK some people....I will leave it at that |
minorl,
I see your points about ML vs Maggie. This is the 1st time WC has seriously worked with the Maggie, and I am just pointing out the superiority of the low mass transducer vs high mass. Of course, you never have the opportunity to hear the best examples of different speaker technology close in time, so memory is always a wild card. If someone prioritizes clarity over bass extension and loud SPL's, then low mass transducers are better, PROVIDED they are designed and implemented according to laws of physics. For HF, the narrow ribbon tweeter is superior to the large electrostatic panel, especially if curved, even though there is tighter/more accurate control of the diaphragm in the electrostatic vs the ribbon in the magnetic breeze. For midrange, the ribbon or planar magnetic driver flapping in the magnetic breeze is clearly inferior to the electrostatic. So I suspect that both you and I found the ML Monolith superior to a Maggie in the midrange.
Still, I think the 3.7i offers a superb combination of benefits for most listeners. In my case, my Audiostatic 240 single panel electrostatic 5" narrow by 48" tall diaphragm which is flat and not curved, precisely beamed to my ears, offers still greater clarity than any Maggie or ML, but I admit that I have made big compromises in bass extension and maximum undistorted SPL over the entire range. My Audiostatic comes with 2 panels, so if I use both panels I can get more bass and SPL output. But single panel is much better for clarity and focus. Most listeners would choose the 3.7i over my speakers.
|
I am uploading a quick video so you can all tell me if there is an improvement in sound using the new mic. Please note that this is now being recorded using my iPad since the external mic is only iOS compatible. Let me know if it is or it isn’t worth the $150. I can still return it.
I am trying to get you all closer to what I am hearing. |
|
I just played the YouTube video I uploaded through my phone and you simply can't use your phone speaker guys. If I use headphones then it sounds much better...don't use phone speakers please.... |
If there is clipping, don't worry. I can adjust that. What I simply want to know is if this is better than previous recordings (disregard clipping) or if it is marginal and not worth me spending 150 dollars. |
The sound is nice, but unfortunately I cannot tell you whether it is better than using your phone without the external mike. You should present an A/B using the 2 recording devices with their mikes. There are a few unknown variables. The recording media--phone vs ipad--could have different characteristics. And of course the external mike has different properties like voltage output than the phone internal mike. When I did my extensive mike tests, I made repeated recordings of my violin playing of a 1 minute passage, which were all fairly similar in characteristics. With different mikes, I adjusted the gain on my Bryston mike preamp. Then I tried different mike preamps and repeated all this. When I was all done, I had a recording of all mikes and different preamps with the gain adjusted to yield equal volumes in each recording. Then I could listen repeatedly to my recordings to make a decision as to which mike and mike preamp I wanted to buy. If you don't have the ability to do all these things with your 2 different recording setups, just use your preamp to adjust the volume so that the playback of each recording yields the same volume. Make a video with the 2 recordings in sequence, and then we could decide.
|
Disregard precious link. Use this new video: https://youtu.be/iSxYxCSxMHgWilson Daw, full Merrill see up. Levels are the same on both clips. Let me know if you all feel there is any real advantage or not really worth it. |
First is the new Shure mv88 $150 dollar mic...the second one is the microphone on my Galaxy note 10.
So far people are saying they prefer the microphone on my phone...if that is true, that is CRAZY to think that the built in mic of a phone can best a dedicated Shure $150 microphone |
I thought the first recording was substantially better. Second one sounded veiled in comparison.
i made that assessment before seeing which was which. Better clarity on first recording |
Yeah I'm with kren on this one. I thought the mic recording (1st one) sounded richer, warmer and more detailed....also the stereo aspect sounded better. The phone recording sounded more defused. Work on the mic gain level and I think it's a winner. |
@whitecamaross
Have you listened to it .
What is your take ?
Which one is more true to what you hear ?
To me #1 sound thin but has more clarity .
#2 has more fullness or weight. (I prefer #2)
|
