New Magnepan 1.7


I posted a response to this thread but it (the thread) remained buried in the thread listings – I thought it would be advanced to the “current queue.”

Anyway, since I would like to hear your opinions on the subject, I am restating my post to the original thread as a new thread (I apologize for the redundancy):

I just listened to the new 1.7s at the local dealer, who forewarned me that they sounded terrible due to not being broken in. Indeed, they sounded very thin, tizzy and totally lacking any dynamics in the mid-bass or bass frequencies. The dealer told me that this was to be expected and that he fully expects them to sound great once properly broken in.

When the 1.7s arrived, the dealer compared them to his 1.6s that were fully broken in and which he said totally blew away the new 1.7s (I did not get to hear this comparison since he recently sold his 1.6 demo pair). Through the 1.7s I felt that various well-recorded acoustic music did sound very promising, with respect to the resolution in the upper frequencies already sounding detailed and resolved, but when more dynamic material was played (rock, electronic, large orchestral passages, bass & drum) they sounded unacceptably thin and lacking bass of any substance whatsoever.

I have no real experience with Magies. Is this long (and necessary) break in time to be expected, and if so, how much do “new Magies” improve with break in? I have to wonder about all the glowing reviews…for their reviews, do the reviewers receive “pre-conditioned” (fully broken in) speakers?

I plan to revisit the dealer in about four weeks to reevaluate the new 1.7s.

I would appreciate other opinions (regarding the 1.7s)

Thanks.

Ben
2chnlben
Learn about and listen to Gradient, ATC, Morrison, Linkwitz Lab. They each take a different approach to solve the same problems.
"but when more dynamic material was played (rock, electronic, large orchestral passages, bass & drum) they sounded unacceptably thin and lacking bass of any substance whatsoever. "

it's been my experience that the old "planar vs other" discussions often come down to the issue raised in the statement above.

To each, how important are rock and roll dynamics?

I've owned 1.6s, 3.6s Apogees..Heck I even owned the old Monsoon planar computer speakers.

It was probably 20+ years ago I became hooked on planar speakers. It's hard for me to describe it, that mid range and sound stage hooked me instantly.
I'm a long time Mark Knopfler fan, his guitar is pure goose-bump teary-eyed pleasure for me.

My 1.6s never came close to producing heavy duty rock.
My 3.6s come a bit closer.

I suspect possibly big $$$ planars would come closer still, but the big $$$ is then the issue.

For me, I would trade Heavy Metal dynamics every day for the magic mid range and soundstage of planars.
Others would consider this decision idiocy.

A good dealer should be able to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of Maggies in about 20 minutes using two recordings. I knew immediately what my preference was.

Both my 1.6s and 3.6s absolutely improved over time, probably upwards of 100 hours.

Good Luck

There seems to be multiple Magnepan 1.7 discussions going on. I posted this elsewhere, but here are my impressions of the new Magnepan 1.7s:

I have been living with my MG 1.7s now for two months. Shortly after purchasing the MG 1.7s, I purchased the Wyred for Sound DAC 1, a Netgear 9150 digital music center and a Polk Audio DSW MicroPRO 2000 subwoofer so some of the subjective changes in sound quality can't be pinned on any one piece of equipment. Other equipment includes a BADA MA3MK II tube hybrid preamp and MA100MK II amplifier (300 watts into 4 ohms). All wiring is Xindak ribbon speaker wire and Xindak analogue and digital cables.

The past two months have been an amazing journey with the new equipment. I replaced 5 year old MG 1.6s with the MG 1.7s (along with an original 35 year old pair of MG IIs!). As the equipment has broken in the clarity of sound is becoming nothing short of outstanding. The combo, Magnepan and Wyred 4 Sound DAC, has been a marriage made in heaven. Both seem to provide amazing clarity without sounding etched or unrealistic. I primarily listen to classical music and couldn’t be happier about the sound quality. Music ebbs and flows and where orchestra crescendos used to send me to the volume control to turn it down, now explode with amazing control. It really is phenomenal.

I have always had a problem getting “depth” from my system. Clarity, realistic reproduction of orchestral instruments and vocals have been outstanding but all were presented within a broad right to left very narrow depth presentation. For the first time, I am getting some depth to the music. Still not what has been reported by others with Magnepans, but much better than ever before. I am still tweaking the position of the speakers to try to improve the depth but it is a work in progress.

Rock music, for the first time ever for me, sounds good through Magnepans. Always to me a weak link, I now enjoy listening to rock music through my system.

I will be visiting a gentleman who has a dedicated sound room with MBL speakers and amplifiers with analogue front end on June 19, 2010. I estimate he has between $50K and $100K into his system. I am very excited to hear what the absolute top end sound equipment can bring and to be able to compare it to my system which is based on the “best deal for the dollar” strategy. If we can work it out, I may bring my Magnepan 1.7s to his system at a later date to hear what a top end turntable and MBL amp/preamp can do with my speakers. Will follow up on this later.

For now, I am very happy with the quality of my system. The weakest link is likely the small Polk subwoofer; however, I must say it is amazingly good for the price I paid for it ($429.00 at Newegg with list over $1K) and very convenient with a separate remote control.