Outdated terminals? I've had 3 pairs of Maggies and banana plugs have always fitted with no problems whatsoever. My current 1.7i's and my previous .7i were fine too. The 1.7i's are a step change in performance over the .7i's IMO - a huge leap in performance I found.When you say 'the rest of the space is',, are you saying the total length of your room is 24' or 33'? You must include the whole space in your description, as that is the space that your speakers 'see'.The VK-200 will be fine for the 1.7i's, which I would point you towards, depending on your room size, as they do need 3>5' behind. Side walls are not really a great issue as there's very little output to the sides from a dipole speaker, although wall reflections obviously do ocurr.The .7i's are 'bass challenged', but a REL T5/7/9i(x) will sort that out, but they would be an enormous upgrade from your current speakers IMO - bass is not the whole story. The openess/clarity/air etc, compared to most box speakers, will blow you away.
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Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other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
108 responses Add your response
Hi there In the market now for a pair of ~ sub-$3K speakers for my 2-channel system and these came up in discussion with local shop. I had experience years back with a bud who had these in our house. Unforgettable sound. Very characteristic sound, but it just stopped you and you listened. Anway, with this type of speaker in consideration, one question for those in the know: is there a shortened life expectancy of these planar speakers as compared to typical 'box' driver spec'd speakers? I recall that same bud at some point down the road switched speakers and never went back to them and he told me they started to sound 'old' . . . . I don't even remember what he meant by that. Thanks |
Hi, Luxman 505ux, conrad johnson ca200 and wyred4sound sti1000 even used as pure amp with new audible illusion L3A did not bring out what my heavilymodded 1.7 with solid birch, humble bee hifi's crossovers with giant capacitors/coils etc. is capable of .... until sanders magtech came to town. Cheers. Richard |
I have been using Maggie panels for the past 7 years, first with a pair of 1.6 in my small 11' X 17' room. I liked them so much that I moved up to the bigger 3.7, but that was a mistake because my room just couldn't cope with the extra energy, not just in the bass region but all round. I struggled with them for 2 years and finally gave up & moved down to 1.7i with 1 DWM. They were driven by Berning Quadrature Z mono blocks (1.7i) and Plinius SA Reference (DWM). The sound was wonderful but I got itchy and got myself a pair of expensive Raidho D 1.1 bookshelves last month. To my dismay the super costly D 1.1 does not outperform my humble 1.7i across the board. Sure the bass punch is more pronounced but that's about it. Just shows how excellent value Maggie represents. |
| Post removed |
@coldears Instruments on a stage all have varying intensity/ dynamics but the Maggie’s homogenized everything into sonic wall paper. It had tone and colour etc but seemed to lack varying dynamics within that field. Like I said hard to explain. I think that's a very good description of their sound. An album that really highlights the lack of varying dynamics - especially at low volume - is Supertramp's Breakfast in America. I also agree with a phrase I encountered in one review: "Maggie Mist." In my system, everything sounded like it was a bit diffused. The imaging was wide and deep but lacked precision. This really isn't surprising when one considers that the sound is radiating from an ~ 5' tall surface. Many claim that one strength of Magnepans is their clarity, however, I felt that the diffused sound really hindered them in that regard. To my ears, the 1.7s weren't any cleaner sounding than most $2K pairs of dynamic box speakers. |
I have owned so many Maggie’s over the years yet with all they do so well I have always come up short somehow. The speaker has progressed dramatically over the years but the 1.7s left me again wanting. I am not sure how I can explain this but here goes. Listening through this speaker every thing had colour and coherence top to bottom but didn’t sound like live music. Instruments on a stage all have varying intensity/ dynamics but the Maggie’s homogenized everything into sonic wall paper. It had tone and colour etc but seemed to lack varying dynamics within that field. Like I said hard to explain. |
Wendell doesn't like subs. ;] They want you to use their DWMs - which will "mate" better than some cone-head thing but will not give you the low low bass you may really want, and require very specific positioning re back wall distance. if you do get cone based subs, try first and listen at the Xover freqs. - then buy 2 not just one |
SunnyJim- There are a lot of posts listed here, so I am not sure if you will get to see this response as most of them were from back in May! Or if you have made a decision in choosing a speaker. It is a very subjective opinion and really comes down to listening tastes! I can tell you from my experience in hearing a wide variety of speakers that the Maggies represent exactly what they are noted for-a wide soundstage, very low distortion (if any) and a realistic presentation of all instruments in their respective dynamic range. Not only that, the vocal tracks, especially those of female singers seem to be as if they are right in the room with you! With regards to the size of the speakers from Magnepan. The larger models do have extended bass frequencies, such as the 3.7i and 20.7 However, the .7 or 1.7i would be best served in utilizing a subwoofer as well. I have the venerable and highly proclaimed 1.6 QR's. I am using a subwoofer with them of course. I am driving them with Quicksilver V4 Monoblocks! My room is 12x15 too! It is quite loud with enough power and perfectly mated for these speakers! I agree that if you have a very large listening room that you might need a more powerful amplifier or maybe solid-state to drive the Maggies to reasonable levels, but once again that's an opinion! |
If you want your music to kick you in the chest (while it damages your hearing) get some Klipschorns. IME, the requirement to be out from the front wall is very true. It is less of a requirement, but still true, for most box speakers. The reason is that you need reflected sound to arrive after a certain number of milliseconds difference from the direct sound in order to be perceived as a reflection by the brain, and not muddy the direct sound. The reflections are louder with dipoles; that is all. The farther dipoles are from the walls, front and rear, the better the depth perception, assuming your source has any, and your electronics preserve it. There are numerous myths and personal preferences presented as shortcomings here. The only way to decide for yourself is to hear a pair, for a good while, in your own home. This should be possible. |
The price of the Mye stands is not inconsiderable (though not exorbitant), so if one wants to get an idea of the improvement they can provide to the sound of a pair of Maggies before ordering a pair, find a way to brace the top of the speakers. One Maggie owner on the Planar Speaker Asylum Forum installed a wood plank between his panels and the wall behind them. I came up with the idea of putting a spring-loaded 2-piece metal tube (like for a shower curtain) between panel top and ceiling, to lock the panel in place. No more swaying to and fro! If you like what you hear, but don’t like what you see (if there is a female in the house, she certainly will not!), go for the Mye’s. |
I own 1.7i MYE STANDS RULE!!! If you don't agree... you've never listened with them... Maggie's rock... I listen to all genre on them. Mostly jazz, vocals and rock... You need a HUGE amp.... at least 400w per channel. Then turn it up, Maggie's will surprise you... Disclaimer; I use a pair of NHT subs. ;) |
First of all, I'd like to nominate Randy-11 for president and bdp24 for vice-president. Second. At what point does one accept the characteristics of speaker A,B,C, or D and simply listen to the music? My .7's provide listening enjoyment on many levels, far beyond their price point. But of course that's just me. Meanwhile I hope the OP is ok since he's not checked back in some time. |
All speaker design are compromises. Every listener has to realize his priorities in the sound of reproduced music, and then find products that have been compromised to achieve those same priorities at a given price point. Panel speakers like Maggies provide a sound NO box speaker can, regardless of price. If "that" sound is what one has as a priority, it’s failings can be accepted and lived with, while the failings of a box speaker, though superior in some ways, can not. |
randy-11, do you believe everything the manufacturers tell you? One reason Magnepans are popular is the "value" they offer and that’s accomplished by making tradeoffs. In my relatively short time of ownership, both the stands (Sound Anchor) and voodoo fuses made considerable difference. I enjoyed them for what they offered but just couldn’t deal with their narrow sweet spot and hollow bass. I have Martin Logans in a different/larger room and they sound both warmer and go lower. |
Magnepans are good speakers but all who claim the 1.7s can compete with anything under $10k need their hearing checked. Are they as good as many $4k pairs? Sure, definitely. However, go listen to the 1.7i and then some Stirling Broadcast LS3/6s ($5k) or Spendor SP100s. The Maggie's don't hold a candle, not by a long shot. Those boring, tired looking boxes with conventional cones make Magnepans sound darn ordinary in comparison. |
The stock feet supplied by Magnepan are just fine and do NOT need to be replaced. This is true of any dipole radiator - think about it. Or call up and annoy Wendell. Or do a proper listening test. Mye Stands or similar could be useful if you have a toddler who tries to rock them back and forth all the time - otherwise not. The stock fuses are just fine and do NOT need to be replaced. Again, call Wendell - the factory has tested all sorts of improvements. Put the ripoff money the fusers want for their woo-woo towards a nice Bryston amp, Benchmark, good Class D or something that has good current delivery into 4 ohms. or room treatments - things that work |
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. |
| Post removed |
The stock feet supplied by Magnepan should be replaced with the Mye Stand or similar, and the stock fuses should be replaced for an easy upgrade--Synergistic Blacks are the best by far, and the bass crossovers on the older 3.X series should come off their mounts for isolation--the Cardas jumper kit is great for that. Two small subs bring out more dynamics up and down. After all this, and for the cost, there is an open, full soundstage. And, they benefit greatly by getting them up off the floor for isolation from vibrations feeding back into the stands--even Mye Stands--which provide a secure platform for an isolation scheme--without a heavy box, and with only a perimeter frame, Maggies are sensitive to vibrations--in my experience and opinion. |
Classical music is my thing (choral singer and organist, spouse was principal bassoonist with symphony orchestra). I went from Maggies to Alons to Nolas...to GoldenEar Tritons. Hubby and I recently auditioned Maggies (.7, 1.7 and 3.7). We preferred the Triton Two+ or Three+ by a considerable margin. Plus much easier to place in our room. Easier to drive. And much more satisfying to us on large scale orchestral and choral works. (We thought the Triton 7s were nice speakers for the $$ but they did not float our boat. The Threes are more transparent, dynamic and better in every way to my ears, worth the upgrade.) However, if you love planars, I say go for whatever floats your boat. |
I recently took a magnet, and tested all the parts on the terminal plates of a pair of Tympanis. The parts appear to be the same as on current models, and here’s what I found: The speaker terminals (those short little tubes into which you insert banana jacks or bare wire) are ferrous! Steel, I presume. So are the nuts which secure the terminals to the plate, as are the rivets which secure the fuse blocks to the plates. All the other parts---the plate itself, the tags onto which the internal wires are soldered, which are then installed onto the backs of the terminals, and the fuse holders, are non-ferrous, aluminum perhaps. The steel speaker wire terminals have to go. Steel?! Luckily, the Cardas binding posts fit perfectly in the holes into which the stock posts were installed, no modifying needed. However, the Cardas posts are just slightly deeper than the cavity in the MDF speaker frame, so one needs to move the plate out from the frame a little. I got some aluminum stand-offs at my hardware store, putting them between the plate and the speaker frame, and it works perfectly. The fuse blocks are connected to the + speaker terminal with round clips, so when the terminals are removed, the fuse blocks can be left disconnected if one chooses. Another piece of trash removed from the signal path, for increased transparency. |
My post above, hinted at a couple of problems with all Maggies, as they are built. 1. The entire speaker is unstable, and will move forward and backwards slightly when playing. Installing stands to prevent the speakers from doing this, is an must of you want to hear what the speakers are capable of. As soon as I installed my DIY stands, I noticed an immediate improvement in bass and midbass definition, image focus, and slight improvement in dynamics. 2. Use of relatively cheap x-over parts. I am not sure if this is still an issue, but it was with pre 3.5 models. Swapping out the caps with same value, but better quality caps, improves overall clarity. I understand that Magnaplanar is doing their best to deliver a great price to sound quality ratio, and they succeed very well. That does not mean that a bit of low $$ DIYing can't squeeze substantially better performance. |
I have a vintage pair of MG IIIa's that I upgraded the x-overs with much better caps, reinforced the frames and added DIY stands (similar to MYE stands), and they are definitely not lacking dynamics. I listen to plenty of demanding symphonic classical music, mostly 20th century and contemporary, and they have no problems with it at all. I often run into problems adjusting volume for pp and having them playing too loud when passages reach ff. |
| Post removed |
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. |
"4 pairs I owned did their best square in the middle of the room. " Of course if this is where you placed your speakers and found them to have the most satisfying sound that is just fine and of course very audiophile must decide for him/her self what qualities of their Music Reproduction System they find most essential and what characteristics they are willing to compromise in exchange for those preferred qualities. That said, placing just about any speaker but especially one with a dipolar radiation pattern such as Magneplanar "square in the middle" of a room is not consistent with their intended use and certainly not in compliance with their design objectives again especially with Magneplanars. By putting your speakers "square in the middle" of the room you are getting essentially monophonic sound from your Music Reproduction System. Again this is fine if its' your preference but if your preference is for monophonic sound it would probably be a best course of action to use a single speaker with a single monophonic amplifier and keep everything in the Music Reproduction System monophonic all the way through. With those speakers relying on a dipolar radiation pattern, placing the speakers square in the middle of the room you have essentially identical sound propagation both front and rear and when these waves meet at the ears of the listener they tend to cancel out. Of course this will not happen exactly that way because of subtle and slight variations in reflections within the room containing the Music Reproduction System but nevertheless the tendency is there an you are going to achieve a very uneven frequency response as a result of this very unusual practice of placing speakers square in the middle of the room. Again I mean no disrespect to Mr. Shubert and his preferences in sound reproduction but this recommendation for placing speakers square in the middle of a room is most unusual and not likely to satisfy the majority of listeners. |
Hi sunnyjim I don't have anything to add about the Magnepan 1.7i's, but if you are even considering them, this is what is on their website, today: We’ll pay you CASH to hear the Magneplanar 1.7ihttp://www.magnepan.com/model_17 If you take them up on this offer, please let us know what your final decision is. Enjoy! |
To the OP, there are NO disadvantages to Magepans. Only you can decide if they are for you. Setting aside the tired notion of "how may angels might fit on the head of a pin" it seems to me that the aim of home audio, high end or otherwise, is to eventually stop farting around and simply enjoy the music. Case in point, today I hung a pair of the modest Audioengine A2+ speakers in my garage and spent hours listening to all kinds of music while working on various projects. Loved it! Absolutely no concern with any audiophile yada, yada, just the music. From Dvorak to Ornette Coleman, to Tom Petty and more. Full disclosure: I don’t pretend to know nor have heard what "The Absolute Sound" is, even after decades of listening to many genres of music, live or reproduced. YMMV. |
corelli, the secret sauce to the Tekton speakers is the quasi line source array. There are some characteristics of sound reproduction which line sources and panels share. I'm not saying they are identical or that the one can reproduce the other, but they do overlap in some respects. Just as with panels one has to accept certain compromises in performance when approaching a line source. What they do, some can do exceptionally well. If you were to work with a fine traditional 3-way you would be confronted with the lack of coherence of the quasi-line source array. I know, I know, you think it couldn't get more clear, delineated. That's wrong, and you would hear it immediately with a great 3-way. But, you would lose some of the characteristics of the line source in the process. It's all trade-offs in speaker design. Now, corelli, if you want a very interesting experience, switch back and forth over time between the two, panel and line array. You will be shocked at how "wrong" in comparison the other sounds as you adjust to the one playing. It takes time to adjust to a new speaker technology when you have been using the other. But, once adjusted it sounds "right" to the ear. Then, when you switch back again you have to readjust. But, sure enough, over the next few days it sounds more and more "right" to the ear. It teaches one to pay attention to the more nuanced variables of sound production and how one technology cannot capture the essence of perfect sound reproduction. |
I owned the 1.7's for almost 5 yrs and really liked them. They float a (too?) big soundstage and have that open sound I love. I was shocked when I ordered the Tekton Double Impacts. I now realized how I was missing the dynamics of real music. The sound stage was perhaps even better. The DI's produced the most realistic piano I've ever heard. And then this corker--the DI's clearly were superior in grouped voices. I could never pick out the detail of individual voices on my optimally set up 1.7's like I can with the DI's. Wow! Don't get me wrong, I'll always love the Maggies and what they do well. But overall the DI's for me were so clearly superior I would never go back. Not trying to push you to the DI's but just point out limitations of the 1.7 that I was not aware of. |
"If speaker is suited great for certain kind of music and not good for other kind of music, than this speaker by the general rule of thumb junk." This might be true in theory but if this were a "general rule of thumb", we wouldn't have so many different designs, brands, or even sizes of speakers out there to choose from. Same content played through a very high sensitivity single driver speaker will sound very different when heard through a multi-driver, or ESL, or magnetic planar design speakers. And in many cases, particularly for large orchestral/multi instrument content, the experience will be much closer to "live" performance depending on the speaker size, etc. |