2. speakers
  3. 129773-1644

What are some of the downsides of owning a Magneplanar .7 or 1.7i ?

Thinking of moving up speaker wise, and so am considering  the fabled Magneplanar speakers, that is, either the  the .7, or supposedly new 1.7i.   (BTW, I am not sure the Maggie .7 is necessarily an upgrade, and has less bass than my current box speakers...see below)

Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other downsides of this design.  For the last 30 years, I have owned several traditional box design speakers. 

I currently have a pair of Golden Ear Technology model 7's....which I like and generally sound good However, I  would like to confirm what a planar design brings to the table in sound quality. I have read many times about the box-less sound  provided by this design, and its wide sound staging and low distortion. 

I think I have enough power with BAT VK-200 amp (100RMS) to drive the .7, but not sure that is enough to drive the MG1.7i. to higher volumes The pre-amp is a Conrad Johnson PV-14SE. 

The listening room area 12 X15ft, but opens into kitchen/dining area divided by a medium size couch. The rest of the space is approximately 12X18ft behind the sofa with a stupid counter island ( so I cannot move the sofa back any further.. The ceiling is 8 to 9 ft feet high ( not a cathedral ceiling, praise the Lord) . It is a bit of haul to the dealer I bought the Golden Ear T's from who also carries Magneplanar line.  All advice welcomed.    Thanks, SJ   

sunnyjim

Showing 2 responses by prof

prof
3,504 posts
 
clearthink,

What you are saying about getting mono sound from Maggies in the middle of the room isn't making sense to me.  First, it doesn't seem to make theoretical sense.  Second, in practice, I used to have Quad 63s (diopoles) in essentially the middle of my room and they produced stupendous stereo sound and imaging.  (I tend to like closer to nearfield listening, so most of my speakers end up closer to the middle of the room).

I've never, ever heard a speaker of any type, dipole or otherwise, sound mono by being placed well out into a room.  And placing a speaker into the room tends to minimize room issues.
prof
3,504 posts
 

I haven't owned Maggies but I remember immediately being impressed by certain aspects of the sound (they generally sounded great).

I'd owned Quad 63 electrostatics and while I was first in love with the transparency and boxless sound - they sounded so different it was part of what got me back into high end audio to begin with - over time I grew frustrated with the weightless aspect of the sound.  The music just didn't seem to activate the air in a dynamic manner, so the effect was like having a big super clear window on the performance, but it was always happening "on the other side" of the speakers in another room.  I could hear everything, but not feel the sense of air being moved.   I got into dynamic speakers and have never looked back (that same weightless quality is still what I hear in every electrostatic, including the mega expensive Martin Logans (once the woofer passes to the panels).

However, Maggies seemed to be a great in-between sound: they did that boxless panel-like presentation and transparency, but with more density
and "thereness" to the sound.

I also always liked the tone of the maggies I heard - though I know some can point out a metalic tinge here or there, mostly I found them sort of warm-toned and consonant with acoustic instruments.

In contrast, the virtual definition of "transparency at the cost of tone" were the Apogee speakers.  Every Apogee I ever heard...yuck!...sounded metallic and icy to my ears. 
More to discover