Why no reviews of the Magnepan 3.7 in Stereophile

FWIW, Magnepan has been advertising in Stereophile. They just haven't sent in speakers for review (and John Atkinson gets pretty upset when people suggest that a manufacturer has to buy an ad to get a review).

Why be afraid if Stereophile posts the specs of the Maggie and they're not perfect?

They've posted a few reviews of SET amps which measured poorly but had a great sound, and most of those companies are still in business.

I think it would be somewhat of a nice way to advertise, the old reverse type-"Our speaker's measurements suck, but they sound great!".

Or howabout-"JA. said our measurments were a disaster, yet we've sold XXXX numbers of these speakers,"

Or -Thousands of proud and satisfied owners of our speakers are great,but one review says our specs are bad- so who's right?"

Or, just perhaps Magnepan is doing quite well without any reviews or ads in Stereophile, so the money saved will be spent elsewhere.
I don't think any of us want to see the prices rising on Maggies to pay for advertising and making them just another company that makes speakers for the rich.

I own the Maggie Onwall HT speakers in my separate HT system.
Thye do a great job, I don't care about the specs and I use a Depth sub anyway.

I do have a friend who just got a pair of MMG for his 2 channel set up and he is very happy he made the move.
He was apprehensive because of all the stuff he read about Maggies being bass shy and hard to drive.

I told him, just listen to them and make up your mind.
You ears will tell you if they are right for you or not, and reviews are just crack.

That's why every honest and capable reviewer has had his/her
corpus callosum transsected. This permits each cerebral
hemisphere to operate independently as a check on the other.
The left hemisphere actually does the writing but the right
hemisphere assesses the sound while remaining unbiased by the
content of PR, advertising or other comments. Interhemispheric
communication is accomplished by diffusely-acting
neuromodulatory mechanisms. The small price for this is a
reduced appreciation of sound localization and imaging giving
rise to higher demands for these parameters.

"Advertisement can morph..."
I'd make that "Advertisement could morph" unless someone has proof. The brain has a nasty habit of "knowing" stuff it couldn't possibly know, and we all need to keep a close watch on what it is coming up with.

Advertisement can morph easily into bias and even bribery. Equipment held over for personal use is unethical at best. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

Reading these posts, it seems that many of you think reviewers are on 'the take,' as it were.
I wrote for TAS, was the Equipment Manager for Fi Magazine and wrote again for UltraAudio.com.
There was no 'take,' on any of my reviews. Nor are there any on HP's reviews or a large majority of the TAS writers. I knew several of them. The reviews are honest. How so many of you can allow yourselves to speculate endlessly - and with no evidence - is pretty disgusting. HP may make mistakes, but he reviews what he hears, but his ears are his reputation. Same with JV and Neil Gader and Fred Kaplan, when they wrote for TAS. John Nork and Cordesman: beyond even thinking they would write other than what they heard.
Has it occurred to you that reviwers worry that others won't hear what they hear and call them frauds? I wrote a review of the Hurricanes on Ultraaudio and someone wrote to ask me if I didn't find the ASL Hurricanes "smeared." I thought, "What????? Is he high?!?!" Those amps are in no way smeared. HOWEVER, when I moved them to a smaller room (13 x 20) from a larger one (23 x 45), they did not have the absolute realism they had in the larger room. I still have them 10 years later, and am putting them back in the larger area (in the basement) when spring comes, just so my friends can hear the difference between the two rooms. in the larger room, they sounded so alive, that after 20 years of listening to components, I was instantly dazzled and I hadn't even made it back to the listening chair.
Now, I also heard these at Lyric Hi-Fi, one of the most venerable of audio salons. i can tell you it was a dismal failure, and only my belief in HP made me acquire them months later. And they sounded every bit as real as he said, and, i assure you, i did NOT have Nola Grand References. I had Hales Revelation 3s, but I'd had several amps on them and it was like going from a propeller plane to an F-16. No lie here whatsoever.
So, if you KNOW what you're talking about and you KNOW reviewers who took money for reviews (the idea that a reviewer did a good review so the manufacturer would advertise is stupid: we get NOTHING out of it, and were never, ever told to write a good review in order to generate income).
As my late mother would say, when her nieces and nephews would say they hated broccoli/spinach/green beans, or whatever, "Have you eaten them before?Invariably, the response was "No." I knew to duck, 'cuz I KNEW the exact wording that would fly out of her mouth: "if you haven't tasted them, you don't know what you're talking about, you stupe (stupid person), so shut your mouth."
I detest the petty speculation about dishonest reviewers and how we all do it to get the manufacturer to advertise. i knew Dave Wilson, Luke Manley, Mr. Nudell, and others, and owned their products long BEFORE I ever became a reviewer. They wouldn't even DREAM of suggesting a good review in order to advertise. They didn't need to: their products spoke for themselves, good review or not.
Kindly shut it, unless you have proof of this. Writing an accurate review is what gives us credibility. Missing obvious flaws diminishes it, and in the industry, that's a death rattle if you want to review someone's products, and they say, "Aren't you the guy who said so-and-so's speaker had a suckout in the mid bass??? Uh, no, thank you, I don't think we'll be providing you with samples." And you are dead - and usually fired. ESPECIALLY from TAS.

Tmsorosk, the reviews of the 3.7 that I've seen imply that it has superb rather than poor dispersion, better than the 3.6. The narrow ribbon tweeter inherently has almost perfect dispersion characteristics. I'm guessing that Magnepan improved the dispersion of the midrange using techniques similar to those they used on to improve the dispersion of the quasi ribbon tweeter on the 1.7's. And they don't want to let that technological cat out of the bag. But whatever the reason, I don't have any reason to disbelieve their explanation. Bass extension is presumably going to be similar to that of the 3.6's, and everybody knows that they don't go particularly deep, besides which the subjective reviews have all pointed out the limitations in bass response. So I don't see any reason to hide that; bass slam and extension are one area in which dynamic woofers have a distinct advantage over planar dipoles. That being said, near field measurements of dipoles tend to exaggerate the bass response, sometimes grotesquely. They don't have much of a bearing on what you actually hear in your room.

There is an article by the famous American phylosopher
Quine entitled 'On what there is'. The question is about
inpenetrable phylosphical issue of 'ontology'. But to know
'what there is' in our hobby we need at least some HI-FI
Magazine. Or so I thought. To know what to check or listen
to we need the names of the products and the names of the manufacturers. This to me is of more importance than the opinion of whatever reviewer. The same apply for me for the forums. If, for example, Halcro never mentioned AT 7V
how should I know what to look for? But in casu even the name was not sufficient. I needed the address of some dealer also. I am glad to have asked for.

Regards,

What is better marketing - a good subjective review with a couple of questionable artifacts in measurements, or no review at all?"

James63 responds

"No review at all, I have passed on a few auditions because of bad measurements. Measurements are not everything, not by a long shot but if you listen to enough speakers and also analyze their measurements you can correlate the two with what you like and do not like."

Back to the question by the op. It seems that James63 sees it like I see it. Why risk a review whereby the measurements are going to reflect issues in the design regardless of subjective impressions? If Magenapan is selling speakers faster than they can make them there really is no reason for them to be subjected to measurements that might reveal issues. This might certainly dissuade some, maybe many, from even considering purchase. What could possibly be gained by Magenapan vs what could be lost? minimize risk. This aside from the obvious fact that audition is mandatory before any purchase.

Kal's response seems completely plausible to me as the REAL reason.

Dear Nandric,
When it comes to descriptions of the sound pertaining to various components, I always rely on Fremer above JA simply because he seems to 'hear' the way I do as he has steadfastly stuck to the supremacy of vinyl through the decades of contempt in the face of vinyl's demise?

Dear Halcro, The logic of your statement imply that you
can rely on Fremers opininons. We all, I think, respect JA
because of his intergrity. As if we are suprised that such
a character quality exist among HI-FI reviewers. Some time ago I had 4 (HI-FI) Magazine subscriptions but only one at present. This is a sad state of affairs for those magazines in my opinion. 'In the other side', as Raul is used to say,
this state of affairs may explain the flourish of our Forums.

Regards,

Funny, that's one reason I like JA. All solid state, no vinyl, no delusions. Well, maybe just one. He still argues that cables make a big difference now and again. No one is perfect. :)

I respect JA however I can never rely on the opinion of a man who never listens to vinyl?

I especially enjoy JA's measurements when they are hard to
reconcile with the price of the measured item. There is btw
no need to read 'between the lines' in his measurements. I
also have subscription because of JA.

Regards,

I think it's because many frequency response deviations are either pleasant (saddle-shaped curves) or inaudible with music.

I especially enjoy JA's suprise when his measurements are hard to reconcile with the reviewers observations.

Beave, Stereophile has a completely different business model than Consumer Reports. For one thing, CR is a broad-based testing organization with a huge subscription base, and operates as non-profit that takes donations, like NPR. Stereophile is a niche magazine with a small subscription base, and not (intended to be :) ) a non-profit. In CR's annual report they mention subscription revenue of $222M for 2010, and contributions of over $17M. While CR doesn't accept ads and Stereophile does, I'm guessing their ad rates are relatively low because their circulation is small and their advertisers are typically small companies. I'd also guess that CR's revenue per subscriber is probably twice Stereophile's.

In good times I suspect Stereophile could afford some purchases for test, but my guess is that in 2011 not so much. Too bad, because the only reason why I subscribe is JA's testing.

Pubul57,
I agree with your last post; I treat the mags as entertainment.

I like the photos:) Boy, in the old days an "A" rating from TAS was sure hard to get, funny how few SOTA pieces existed and how many do today, at least according to Stereophile. But hey, the magazines are here to entertain, keep us interested, and keep the industry buzz and vitality moving forward - and those too are worthy goals for a hobby that is fun, in addition to the the music which is the ultimate goal.

We naturally agree w/ the positive reviews of our own components and seek these reviews out for validation of our choices. Ask yourself, how do you react if one of your own components receives an unfavorable comment from an Audiogon members on one of these forum discussions? The early "undergound" TAS was valuable because a) they set a listening standard, i.e. live music; b) they advocated subjective listening not because measured data was valueless, but because the measurements being made were not correlated with the goal, the ability to accurately reproduce music to the human ear; and c) the reviewers were free of advertising bias. Those days are long gone.

I must say that most of the reviews Iv'e read about products I already own , have been fairly accurate in there sonic description .

I was being sarcastic and comical. I noted about gear not near and all, as with many I just think its in large part fluff and useless overall. Add the "ad" game and reviewers gobbling up the gear they review at insane discounts and its also very suspect.
Funny part is get them ( the big two mags) and poke through them monthly just to feel like I am keeping up with the industry news and offerings. Cheers

Good Post Pubul57.

I am confused by your confusion, they, the reviewers, are in a position to listen
to equipment I cannot, and generally have a much larger range of equipment
that they have also listened to by way of comparison. I do not need them to
assess equipment I do listen, but for equipment that I do not have a chance to
listen to. So the "basic attributes" means clear description of what a piece
sounds like, not basic as simple, but a basic characterization that is accurate
though it will vary in its implementation based on associated equipment.

I don't think reviewers hear any better than anyone else, but for the most part
they do have the opportunity to hear equipment and the time and inclination to
write about their experience. Now if I just thought they were whoring
mercenaries paid to write copy for the manufacturer I would probably indeed
discard their views for the garbage they are, but I don't think most reviewers are
that incompetent or intentionally lying and trying to mislead - those that are
can be smelled from a mile away and they don't last too long. For example, I
find when Art Dudley listens to equipment and describes it, it is pretty darn
similar to my experience when I hear that piece of equipment, and we both
seem to like similar sound.

So is cynicism merited due to the conflict of
interests and financial ties to advertisers? Maybe. My view is not so jaundiced as
to discredit their ability to describe the sound of what they hear, and that is at
least useful for be given a sense of equipment to consider. Or I could listen to
folks on Audiogon that own a piece of equipment they are looking to sell in a
few months (or those that have a financial interest in said product, often not
disclosing that fact) and believe their praise for that piece of equipment. I take
both sources of information with a grain of salt, but in both cases it brings
products to my attention that I might want to listen to, then do kitten to, and
then decide for myself if I like it or not, no matter what Fremer said.

Pubum57, you wrote you found reviewers "generally do a good job describing the basic attributes of a given product" (paraphrased).
Dont you see how odd that statement is? If it is "basic" then who needs it? Cant anyone with half a brain do "basic" descriptions?
Sure we all cant demo gear near us but by most everything you said reviewers often do little more than most, save for the huge gifts and discounts they do get for "basic" info.

Lrsky , Thank you for your enlightening post.I fully agree with Chadlinz that reviews are of little value yet so many members quote chapter and verse from a review they read.
I wonder,do they really hear what the reviewer states being the room and 99% of the associated components used differ from the reviewer's.
I guess its just the POWER OF SUGGESTION.

Chadlinz said:

"Reviews are mostly of little value...'

Not to mention the entirely FRAUDULENT REVIEW of the XTEME Loudspeakers by DK, later, the LSA10's, (which was NEVER a speaker, never had drivers in it at all until John Tucker and I completed it) a few years back in POSITIVE FEEDBACK--I wrote to them for weeks to gain some insight as to how it could have happened, NO ANSWER.
Also, Stereomojo...I wrote James Darby, owner/editor/reviewer, asking, (even though it was a good review) "Did you bi-wire my LSA1's when you reviewed them?"
Stating that they were never meant to be single wired, but could be for convenience, but only sound as they can when bi-wired. I wrote at least 4 times, NO ANSWER.

Reviewers can be really, really dumb, and all they have to do is hide behind their monitors when called out.

I miss the day when Absolute Sound only had ads in the rear of the magazine...separate from reviews.

Good listening,

Larry

What is the best selling speaker of the past 20 years not reviewed by TAS or Stereophile?

"What is better marketing - a good subjective review with a couple of questionable artifacts in measurements, or no review at all?"

No review at all, I have passed on a few auditions because of bad measurements. Measurements are not everything, not by a long shot but if you listen to enough speakers and also analyze their measurements you can correlate the two with what you like and do not like.

I don't know, I find many reviews do a pretty dark good job of describing the nature of the piece equipment, for the most part I have found reviewers do pretty good job of describing the basic attributes - given that we all know the importance of associated equipment and the speaker placement within a room. I give them more credit than you do, though as always with a grain of salt, but a good reference point for considering a product. And of course, some reviewers are a lot better and more dependable than others.

But all this begs the question: Why does Stereophile need (implied) consent from the manufacturer, in the form of loaning the speakers, before reviewing a speaker? Why not just go to a store and buy, or borrow, a pair? Consumer Reports does not wait for car manufacturers to give them a sample; they buy one at a store, like a consumer would.

Reviews are mostly of little value, they always leave cryptic passages that leave them plenty of wiggle room if called out on a review mistake. On top of that unless you use same amp, source, wire, power, room, placement and dare I say bias towards or against a product all reviews are a waste of time. Reviews can entertain and give some valid info but the review only serves to enrich the reviewers system, sure they have to "suffer" through reviews (all the while trying to convince us how hard it is and how bad they have it) but show many any reviewer and I will show you how that "suffering" paid off big time for his personal gain.
So read the reviews, get what you can from them but know they are worthless to most everyone except the company and the reviewers system.

Reviews are like drugs. You know that they are no good for you but you read them anyway....

The 3.7 is an interesting speaker. Listening to one the other day I was very pleased with the soundstage, localisation and resolution of the reproduction. I was less impressed by the bass which did not dive very low at all and was quite lean. Careful matching of amplification is needed because if the wrong product is used the treble is too hot.

What is better marketing - a good subjective review with a couple of questionable artifacts in measurements, or no review at all?

Seems like it was neither personal or an oversight if you take JA's word for it, and why wouldn't you?

Reviews should be taken with a few grains of salt . Get to know the reviewers and which ones tell it like it is . When I wanted to upgrade my power cords from the Cardas Gold Ref's , I listened to every one I could get my hands on , Shunyata came out on top by a large margin . When I started the research aspect of my quest I found that seven members of the Stereophile review team owned these cords . It was what they didn't say that told me the most .

TAS has never measured anything which was their major attraction back when Julian Hirsch was writing for Stereo Review and measured everything which was easier to write about than the sound anyway. Of course back then TAS had no advertising and reviewed loaner equipment from owners or manufacturers who could justify the risk since they couldn't really afford to advertise and their equipment would have measured the same as other components costing far less. IMHO TAS has far less credibility than it did in those days. Stereophile has some value but all reviews in all the magazines have to be taken w/ a large grain of salt given their dependence on advertising revenue. Magnepan got the review they wanted from TAS in the format that Magnepan finds most comfortable. I don't really have a problem with that. Ultimately the buyer has to make his/her own decision based on, hopefully, more than an (indirectly) paid review.

Lack of low frequency extension and a narrow dispersion pattern , there not going to test well .

"I Just wanted people to be aware of the politics involve in reviews from Stereophile"

There are no "politics" involved in this matter. See JA's statement at http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/5/59144.html

Magnepan wanted a review that was not accompanied by objective measurements. JA measures all speakers submitted for regular reviews and, consequently, Magnepan chose not to respond to his request for the 3.7s.

Don't need validation I love my purchase I Just wanted people to be aware of the politics involved in reviews from Stereophile ,I think this forum has done that enjoy the music remember that's what it's all about.

Don't need validation I love my purchase I Just wanted people to be aware of the politics involve in reviews from Stereophile ,I think this forum has done that enjoy the music remember that's what it's all about.

Sorry misunderstood post. I thought you wanted a answer now I see you just wanted purchase validation. A review to prove to yourself you made the right choice.

Easy because manufacturer or editor doesn't want or have time to review them. Why cant you listen and make up your own mind if the 3.7 for you? Reviews offer little real hands on experance offers much.

Panels measure like crap and Stereophile loves their measurements (as they should). I am sure Magnepan feels having so many measurements will only hurt sales. If their sales are good why risk it?

Other brands do this too... have you ever seen a pair of Gallos review by Stereophile (please correct me if I am wrong)? They made statements like "Anthony Gallo Takes The Mega-Buck Boys To School" back in 2006 and then... never reviewed them, smells funny to me.

Elizabeth, well now, that seems a little off, don't you think? What is to stop someone else from buying a pair and running the measurements? Not to mention reverse engineering. Somebody is blowing smoke here. Diller has to know this would make Valin & Co look like shills. On the other hand, could measurements expose Valin's concern about bass response? I won't be doing any buying without a thorough audition.

"They didn't like it, so no review."

Nonsense.

Thanks Elizabeth I was not trying to stroke my own ego,I know how good they are glad to see somebody understands the post.

Sadly, Stereophile is the epitome of yellow journalism. They have sought to destroy many of the finest minds/companies in audio. Google the carver challenge. The fact that Stereophile has no Magnepan or Martin Logan speakers in their recommended components should tell you that you should not trust their opinions. Their content is not directly tied to ad revenue, rather is it tied to the myths that support the high end business.