Here’s a good video from a listener with a lot of experience talking about Maggies and how different speakers sound and one that combines the best of them all. Which owning a pair I of course completely agree with him. https://youtu.be/7RxRTFx6Cd0?t=355
Planar speaker characteristics
I’m thinkIng of the possible advantages of going planar. Here’s my situation:
I currently have Triangle Stratos Volante 260 speakers, and I love their sound. The issue with these are that they have poly switches in the crossovers that limit the volume they can achieve. Rectification of this issue is a long story, I’ll spare everyone the details. Before I acquired these speakers, I briefly owned a pair of Magnepan MMG’s, and was quite impressed with them. Unfortunately, also at the time I didn’t have the amplifier power to drive them to potential, and after all, they are the smallest end of the Magnepan line. After acquiring the Triangles, I also got a pair of Parasound JC 1’s. As of right now, I really do love the sound of my system. But the memory of those Magnepan’s kind of haunts me, now that I have the power to drive a pair of the larger models. I’m thinking in the 3 something range. Can someone with Magnepan experience tell me what characteristics they love about their Maggie’s, and also what they don’t. What I love about the Triangles: midrange detail and musicality, not clinical, but not too warm. The “jump factor” as a reviewer put it in a review of the Signature Deltas. What I don’t like are the aforementioned volume issues, and that they are fairly lean in bass extension. High quality bass, but not as deep as I’d like. However, and this is an important however, the addition of a subwoofer has effectively solved that issue. What makes The Magnepan sound appealing, and also not? Not interested in electrostats. Also, please try to stick to the question. Not really looking for commentary on the Parasound’s. I love them, even as my greener sensibilities and my electric bill don’t.
Much thanks in advance,
Dave
I currently have Triangle Stratos Volante 260 speakers, and I love their sound. The issue with these are that they have poly switches in the crossovers that limit the volume they can achieve. Rectification of this issue is a long story, I’ll spare everyone the details. Before I acquired these speakers, I briefly owned a pair of Magnepan MMG’s, and was quite impressed with them. Unfortunately, also at the time I didn’t have the amplifier power to drive them to potential, and after all, they are the smallest end of the Magnepan line. After acquiring the Triangles, I also got a pair of Parasound JC 1’s. As of right now, I really do love the sound of my system. But the memory of those Magnepan’s kind of haunts me, now that I have the power to drive a pair of the larger models. I’m thinking in the 3 something range. Can someone with Magnepan experience tell me what characteristics they love about their Maggie’s, and also what they don’t. What I love about the Triangles: midrange detail and musicality, not clinical, but not too warm. The “jump factor” as a reviewer put it in a review of the Signature Deltas. What I don’t like are the aforementioned volume issues, and that they are fairly lean in bass extension. High quality bass, but not as deep as I’d like. However, and this is an important however, the addition of a subwoofer has effectively solved that issue. What makes The Magnepan sound appealing, and also not? Not interested in electrostats. Also, please try to stick to the question. Not really looking for commentary on the Parasound’s. I love them, even as my greener sensibilities and my electric bill don’t.
Much thanks in advance,
Dave
29 responses Add your response
MC, thank you for the link. Despite the question be about the characteristics of Magnepan speakers, please expound on what it is that you love about the Tektons. I believe they are Moab? Please excuse any hint of derision, it’s just that I asked about the characteristics of Magnepans, and though I have heard Teton Design speakers on occasion, they were not my thing, so to speak. So, I haven’t pursued them as a speaker of choice. But, I’m open to all perspectives... |
dprincipato, get a pair of 3.7I's and you will be in heaven for sure. I have set 2 pair up and I own JC 1's. You won't get the lowest bass but everything else will be first class. It is not the best speaker for playing over 100dB. You risk blowing a tweeter. Magnepan has a great tweeter replacement program. They send you a new tweeter and when they get the blown one back they credit you. They rebuild the blown one and repackage it. The frame and magnets are by far the most expensive part. In spite of being a little fragile it remains one of the very finest tweeters on the market. Because of the controlled dispersion of a dipole panel imaging is more accurate and the sound attains a reality that can not be matched by enclosed dynamic drivers. If you have to have the lowest bass then put subs under them down the line. In the case of the 3.7i's subwoofers do not clean them up much and they do not add headroom because the speaker is limited by the tweeter. |
This one is right up my alley. I have owned Triangle Celius and currently own a new pair of Antals. I have extensive experience with Magnepan MMGs, 1.6s, 3.6s and have a new set of .7s on order. I also have a Parasound A21, and have experience with the JC1s. My Triangle Celius 202s with tube amps were magical with a beautiful sound stage and bounce but they had the same limitations you describe, lack of powerful bass and a limit on volume. However, when matched with a pair of proper subs I was satisfied with what I was hearing, perhaps my best system to date. You should be happy with your system. Magnepans offer a bigger and deeper soundstage but can be difficult to set up and get everything out of them. You should only consider the model 3.6/3.7 system or better. The true ribbon tweeter is perhaps the best in the world but it will have to be to compete with the Triangle tweeter. If you can get them set-up right (the right room with the right placement) the Maggies can be very good, set up wrong and you’ll be hating life. The big panel sound is hard to resist and that is where I have found the most joy but it may take some hard work to get the Maggies to the level of your current Triangle system. |
I had a pair of 1.6QRs and really enjoyed them. However, the one pair of caveats with Maggies is the room and the placement of the speakers in it. Maggies are bipolar and put out as much sound volume to the rear as to the front -- this makes them interact differently with the room than a conventional box speaker. My original room was a large living room, about 25' X 14' and the speakers were able to be out several feet from the wall. Then I moved and ended up with a 14' X 13' room with the speakers only able to be out about 18" from the wall. That just didn't work so I sold the speakers and moved on. If you don't have a good room and/or can't get the placement right, you are going to have problems. In the right room and properly placed, they sound fantastic. |
dpincipato, The 3.7i has a oneness or wholeness to it's sound that hides the fact that it has a crossover. It is close to sounding like a one way loudspeaker. The transient response is right up there with electrostatics the sound is crisp. Snare drums snap like they should. Then there is the imaging. Because they are dipoles and line sources down to about 300 Hz they do not radiate sound to the sides, up or down limiting room interaction. Thus, you get more of a holographic image which is very endearing. Add a subwoofer system like the one I have on my system page and you will be very close to SOTA. IMHO linear array dipoles produce the most realistic sound. Magnepan has evolved it's products beautifully. I had Tympanies 35 years ago and they had the magic but unfortunately colored bass. They have solved that problem with their current lineup. The 3.7i is handily the best value in a panel speaker. Next in line would be the Sound Labs 545 which I believe is twice the cost. |
I've owned four pair of Magnepans over the years - MG1s, MG2s, Tympani IVs, MG3.6r. Needless to say, there is a lot I liked about them. For most of my years as an audiophile, I switched back and forth between Magnepans and more conventional box speakers. When I owned the Magnepans, I missed the deep bass and dynamics of box speakers. After owning the box speakers for a few years, I missed the open, airy sound stage and went back to Magnepans. And I had some pretty nice box speakers including Revel Studios and Duntech Sovereigns. I've finally found a speaker that delivers the strengths I liked about both types of speakers. I've built a set of GR-Research NX-Oticas with stereo triple-stack GR-Research subwoofers. These are DIY speakers, so not for everyone, but they have the open, spacious soundstage that I love so much about the Magnepans, along with excellent detail and dynamics and incredible bass. Obviously not everyone wants to build their own speakers, but I'd recommend looking at some of the commercial open-baffle speakers, such as from Spatial Audio, if you are looking for that kind of sound. |
Dave, I currently listen to 1.7 driven by 4b3 and am in the process of placing an order for a pair of 3.7i. There is so much I like about them that given the small negatives, I would never go back to boxes. First is the cohesion during playback. I can not locate any crossover point while listening and the top to bottom design strengthens this effect from ceiling to floor. Secondly, the accuracy of the midrange and upper end. Since my planars do not suffer the inertia limitations of cones, the pace is quick and when a passage is staccato, it is truly on time. I also think this adds to the sustain and release giving me that extension on vocals that ethereal. Altogether the realism from the combination of cohesion and reset quickness of the panel can be spooky. When listening to woodwinds the vibrato and natural tone is so good I honestly want to look around the room to see the musician play. I am past the phase of wanting gut punching bass and more prefer accurate bass. When we played music, the tympani and drum sets were always well in the rear because we did not want a forward or "loud" bass presentation which is popular amongst younger folks today. Often forward bass is mixed in with the phrase dynamic imho. The dipole design in my space adds to the immersive presentation and overall room interaction is wonderful. At the end of the day there is a reason the 3.7i won "best sound cost no object" at 2015 Axpona and so many box designers want to match that sound or use Mag as a benchmark. They are that good. My experience with the 1.7 has been similar and am looking forward to the upgrade. Cheers. |
If you are going with a planer you need clean power that dips below 3 ohms at least 200 wpc and if going with a maggis,stock Xover are very low grade That applies to most , but 3.7 model on up the true ribbon is a very good ribbon Xover stil suck but lots of potential if keeping then plan on rebuilding the Xover, wiring , and buy a mye stand the stock frames flex which = distortion I owned several of them , I have rebuilt mine and installed a xternal Xover . To behonest the New Spatial audio M5 or M3 with the excellent Beyma AMT tweeter- mid driver open baffle is excellent, nota pig for power and very dynamic and open ,and you can ask, pay for a upgraded Xover , and a 45 day money back audition ,nobody else is offering that a exceptional value. |
Ever since first hearing Tympani 1a's, the first Stereophile Class A speaker, I have owned only planars. T1a, SMGa, MGIIb, MGIIc, Martin Logan Prodigy, Quad ESL57, 2805, 2905. A piano has a soundboard of 20 square feet or more. A cone speaker just can't sound like that with a fraction of one square foot. Look for soundstage. Clarity. Musicality. But unless it's a Quad, it's a good idea to work on that crossover. |
Thanks to all for your very informative responses. It’s becoming very apparent the my listening room, which is also my living room, is a large factor in this. Jaytor, thanks for the GR Research info, they look like a considerable value, and, not being to familiar with open baffles, this will be a whole new adventure in reading more about these. I wish I had the opportunity to hear more open baffle systems, but as of yet I’ve only heard them at Axpona. And we all know the limitations regarding that kind of auditioning. Much to think about, and given the situation (recent COVID furlough) I’ll have time, if not the ready funds, to investigate! Thanks! |
Hi all. I'm new here. I have owned and operated a small Pro Audio company in NZ since 1973. My forte is R and D and product manufacture but this became very difficult for any NZ Prosumer electronics company way back in 1985 when our govt moved the goal posts in a draconian manner, thus destroying manufacture as we had always known it. Such was their utter stupidity as they could have done things differently in a way that could have worked for everyone involved. However, since then I have engineered a 6 neo magnet high frequency planar driver, primarily for high performance applications but shelved it prior to the Covid saga for various reasons, one of which were problems acquiring a suitable diaphragm material. We initially tried DuPonts Kaladex which although did tick some of the boxes, the mass was to high and the product rolled off at around 17kHz. I have since reviving this project, learned that ideally we should be testing polymer film, gluelessly laminated to aluminium foil, at 25 x 25 microns. Glue melts which is why its not wanted. High temperature resilience is essential to accommodate the very high SPL's these things produce. Can anyone collaborate this material type and point me in the direction of a suitable supplier for this or equivalent material please? Any assistance would be much appreciated. Please ignore this post if you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. |
@dprincipato: As a long-time owner/listener of planars (both magnetic-planars and electrostatics), I think you should know that the number one rule for owning them is that if you are not able to place them 5’ or more away from the wall behind them you may be better off with non-dipoles. If you have the 5’ available, read on! Tall line source loudspeakers do a few things most point source designs don’t: image height and scale. Voices are reproduced at life-size height (mouths are roughly 5’ above the floor), and instruments as full-size images. With many box-enclosure loudspeakers you are looking down upon the singer(s) and instruments, as if you are listening from the balcony. And large instruments (grand piano, drumset, etc., as well as the huge image of a full symphony orchestra) are miniaturized. With non-planars the image appears to be squeezed through a hole in the front wall the size of the loudspeaker enclosure. With planars the singers and instruments are just hanging in space. Planars sound more "open" than many non-planars. But planars are not without their own problems. Being dipoles, the planar rear wave creates a situation non-dipoles are less subject to: comb filtering. The rear wave travels back to the wall behind the planar, is reflected off it and travels back to the panel, where it interacts with the front wave. That interaction can cause all kinds of phase problems, resulting in peaks or dips in frequency response. Planars can take some experimenting with positioning to optimize. But what loudspeaker doesn’t? On the other hand, planars have an inherent advantage over non-dipoles because of their dipole radiation characteristics. The front and rear waves are of opposite polarity, so when the two waves meet on either side of the panel, the waves cancel each other (+1 plus -1 = 0), creating a "null" on either side. With no output in that left-to-right plane, dipoles create fewer room modes (resonances). And planars may be placed closer to side walls than can non-dipoles, as those side-panel nulls result in less side-wall reflections. Planars often also sound less like a combination of various drivers (woofer, midrange, tweeter) than do non-planars, as all the planar drivers are almost always of a very similar if not identical nature. And planar crossovers are usually far simpler than most non-planar designs, often just simple 1st-order filters. That enables planars to create sound more consistent top-to-bottom than most non-dipoles. As the pianists hands move down the keyboard, the timbre of the piano remains consistent. "Cut from the same cloth", as the old expression goes. Magnepans are often the only magnetic-planar design mentioned in discussions about planars, but they are not the only ones. Eminent Technology presents some stiff competition with their LFT loudspeaker, which I recommend checking into. Some LFT-8b owners are former Magnepan MG3.7 owners; it’s that good, and for half the price. And, the LFT-8b modulus-of-impedance is much more tube amp-friendly than are Maggies. Maggies are a 3-4 ohm load, the LFT-8 ohms. And if you bi-amp, the m-p panel itself (with reproduces 180Hz to 10kHz, with no crossover!) is an 11 ohm load, great for tube amps. |
I got into audio about 5 years ago. It all started with a trip to AudioConnection, a meeting with Johnny Rutan, and posting my first thread here on Agon. In the time since I’ve purchased quite a few speakers. Here is a list of the ones I’ve owned or auditioned in my home: Vandersteen 1ci (sold then repurchased again/ still own) Most have been enjoyable, save for a few that I just knew right away were not for me. I recently purchased a set .7’s, again from Johnny. I’m running them with a Belles Aria Signature preamp (awesome bit of gear) and Belles Aria monoblocks (112wpc ea). Source is a Lumin T2 streamer/ DAC. Also have a pair of Rel T5i subwoofers crossed at around 45k. My room is 13’ x 11’. I’m setup on the short wall with the audio rack located in a small nook off to the side. The speakers are positioned 3 ft. off the front wall and about 2 ft. from the sides. I listen in a somewhat near field configuration and my listening chair is positioned in an equilateral tringle with the speakers. For me, this is the happiest I’ve been in my audio journey. The Maggie’s are wonderful for all the reasons that have been so articulately expressed above. My listening sessions are longer then they’ve ever been and I’m getting so much enjoyment discovering new music as well as visiting familiar favorites. If you are on the fence trying to decide if planars are for you; I say go for it. It sucks that they raised their prices this year, but at $1,800 I think these speakers still represent one of the biggest values in audio. I don’t think you necessarily need 5’ from the front wall or mega-watt beefy amps to get good sound from these either. Now my biggest dilemma is what to do with those Treos? ;) -Joe
|
@terry9: Have you heard about the dipole subwoofer Magnepan is readying for release in the near future? It may be used with any of their speakers (well, maybe not the 30.7 ;-), or any planar for that matter. For DIY'ers, there has been an OB/Dipole sub available for about 10 years, designed and offered by Brian Ding of Rythmik Audio and Danny Richie of GR Research. Not just an OB/Dipole design, but also a servo-feedback one. The only servo-feedback OB/Dipole subwoofer in the world! The only sub I've heard that sounds as fast (not literally, but ya'll know what I mean) as the Magneplanar Tympani bass panels. |
Thanks bdp. I had not heard of Magnepan's sub - but truth to tell, I'm not too concerned with that bottom octave. Can make me feel a bit queasy, actually. Getting old is a ... how you say? Female canine? You sure are right about those Tympani bass panels - so big, so full, so clean. But the DWM gives even my memories a run for the money. |