Magnepan 3.7: I give up

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I've been flirting with the idea of getting a pair of Magnepans for some time now. Recently, I've managed to cadge a couple of (admittedly brief) auditions at a local dealer and written up the encounters, here:

 

Magnepan 3.7: First Listen

 

Magnepan 3.7: Second Listen

 

The reasons I finally decided on a pair of Maggies? Well, it's complicated. I haven't really attempted to sort that out, so I thought I'd give it a shot in light of the fact that the ball started rolling here on this forum a while back.

 

Let me start by saying that I'm a huge bass fan. Yeah, I know. There's no music "down there". And? Anyway, I love my subwoofers and shaking the house is a lot of fun. This sort of juvenile behavior has been the primary reason I've been so keen on getting a "full range" speaker.

 

Ultimately, however, I found that exercise to be rather fruitless. Let me explain.

 

There are two things working against me here. One is cost. To "go full" means investing a non-linear sum in a speaker -- that is, the pricing of speakers that delve into the 20Hz region isn't a simple incremental cost over speakers that roll off at, say, 35Hz. I don't really understand it, to be honest. But I saved, scraped, and sold my way into a position where I would have been able to get myself something pretty amazing.

 

The other thing I was struggling with was performance. Yes, the Revel Ultima Salon 2 speakers -- and the KEF 207/2 speakers -- are truly wonderful sounding. They "do bass" very well. They also do everything else well, too. I got to hear Wilson Saschas, Vandersteen Model 5s, Legacy Audio Whisper , B&W 800d, as well as speakers from Joseph Audio, Sonus Faber, Aerial, and Avalon. I even went to Axpona this year to explicitly hear loudspeakers. In all that, I've heard some pretty compelling speakers. Great systems. Inspiring sound. But.

 

Ultimately, very little sounded dramatically better than, or as interesting as, the new Magnepans (at least in my price range!), including the big KEFs and Revels. I fully expect your mileage to vary, so don't expect an argument there. But what I found is that most of these wonderful speakers actually sound pretty similar. There are a couple of standouts, and sure, I heard some that were exemplary. But when compared with the $5,500 Magnepan 3.7, I was left with the unshakeable feeling that I wouldn't be missing all that much if I saved the $10-20k. Maybe I just got cheap, or suddenly found I had cold feet, but I still feel that by forgoing the expensive, full range route in favor of the Maggies, I'd still be getting a pair of speakers that actually do sound different.

 

Different how? Coherence. The soundstage that comes out of a big planar like this 3.7 is something you have to hear to understand. It's ... crazy. Very much life-sized. Scale is very easy. Room filling sound is normal and effortless. And did I mention that there's real bass?

 

Yeah, that thing which got me started on this whole kick was bass. Oddly, bafflingly, and completely unexpectedly, the new Maggies have bass. And lots of it. The sample tracks I had been carting around with me from store to store, and room to room at Axpona, sounded just excellent on the Maggies. In many cases, my "torture tracks" sounded better on the Maggies than on speakers 5x their cost -- and it was that (repeated) experience alone that clued me me in to the possibility of saving a whole pile of cash. Ok, I'm slow. But still, better late than never, no?

 

I have to admit, in all my auditioning this year, the bar has been set pretty high as my Merlin VSM-MXR speakers are a tough set to beat. They image like the dickens, they're fast, the midrange is superb -- for what they are, they're peerless. This is probably why I had such a hard time getting really enthusiastic about any particular full range speaker -- quite a lot of them simply couldn't hold a candle to the Merlins.

 

So why am I ditching the Merlins? LOL. Did I say I was ditching the Merlins?

 

If they do go, it'll be because the Maggies do something the Merlins don't (and aren't designed to) -- which is powerfully fill a large room full of wonderful sound. I'm not sure that this is a fair critique of the Merlins, but there it is. I love them, but my room may well be a bit large for them to pressurize, and this is something I think the Maggies will have a far easier time with. Will the Maggies be as clear, as fast, as rich as the Merlins? Who knows. But while they may not be better, that wasn't really what I was looking for. I was looking for different. And the top-to-bottom coherence and soundstage size on the Maggies are different, no question about that.

 

So, I'm now in the queue for my very own pair of brand spanking new 3.7s. Apparently, the lead time on these guys is something like 8-12 weeks now, so I'm going to be waiting awhile. And wondering if I made the right decision. Second guessing myself. Doubting. And day dreaming.

 

Anyone else jumping on this particular horse?

 

Chris, I hope this post and all the cross linking doesn't violate your posting policies, but I thought I'd tie up a couple of old threads I started here last year and offer something new. I hope you'll forgive me if I've transgressed.

 

Cheers!

 

[Paul R]

You have done pretty darn good we think!

 

We ordered a pair of 1.7's a month ago, not so much because of the price difference between the 1.7s and the 3.7's, but trying to fit into a more limited space.

 

We figure when we get around to selling this house, the next house will have a room just for sound and video, and the 1.7s will become the surrounds, and the MMGs will become the center channel (wired in mono), with a nice set of 3.7's as the fronts and mains.

 

Check our Barry D.'s Soundkeeper.com site for a ton of tips about Maggies, including how to place 'em.

 

 

[jcbenten]

Congrats if you get them. Awesome speakers, at least the ones I have heard.

 

Re: hi-end speakers sounding the same.

 

I think what you heard can possibly be attributed to a couple of issues:

1) Convergence: One "ideal", flat sound curve exists and the more you spend, the closer you get to that curve. Similar to optimum car aerodynamics (cd) where cars start taking the same shape, the principle is similar to audio equipment. Solid state amps sound analog; tubes sound less dreamy and control speakers like solid state, etc. Hi-end speakers lose colorations and start sounding similar.

 

2) The more you spend, the more important are your ancillary components. Did you carry your amp to the auditions? Your music source? Your music? Possibly you are hearing your electronics. Even if not, higher end components will connected to higher end speakers; therefore, see #1.

 

3) When spending that much money, wants, desires, and prejudices come into play. You want and desire the Maggies. The others may have been "I better listen to others".

 

And I could be completely wrong.

 

Good luck!

chris

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks for the post. Read with interest.

 

You wrote:

 

*********************

Different how? Coherence. The soundstage that comes out of a big planar like this 3.7 is something you have to hear to understand. It's ... crazy. Very much life-sized. Scale is very easy. Room filling sound is normal and effortless. And did I mention that there's real bass?

*********************

 

My question if you don't mind: There's something I'm trying to figure out at the front end of the journey into mid-fi (let alone hi-fi).

 

I've read raves about coherence or soundstage that comes from a single full range driver. It's one single point source in a speaker.

 

Then I read raves about soundstage from a large planar speaker. This radiates sound from a very large surface.

 

How do I reconcile both? A single driver versus a very large driver seem so very different. The microcphone is a tiny point of recording and I assume that to get the best soundstage, I'd need a single driver - yet I hear so many comments about these large flat surface speakers being good in soundstage.

 

Are both groups talking about different things? Or am I not understanding something?

 

Thanks in advance for any help as you've obviously auditioned more great speakers than I'm likely to do in a lifetime.

 

Thanks,

UL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

I'll take a quick stab at it, but this subject gets complex fast, so please remember, this is quite simplified! I may have introduced an inaccuracy by doing that.

 

A point source doesn't necessarily have to be a mathematical point. If the size of the speaker in question is negligible in relation to the scale of what it is trying to reproduce, it can be considered a "point source." For example, a speaker driver with about 32 cubic inches of space in total, trying to reproduce the sound one would hear at a specific location in an amphitheater with thousands of cubic feet of ambient space.

 

In that case, the speaker is considered a point source.

 

Now a planar speaker generally has a lot more surface area to make noise than a typical cone shaped driver. But still, even a few square feet of planar speaker space, compared to thousands of cubic feet is negligible, and can be considered a point source. It's just a bigger point source!

 

And in the case of Maggies for instance, they throw a lot more sound with a totally different "feel" to it than do (most) conventional speakers. Cheaply, relatively speaking.

 

Does that make any sense at all to you?

 

It really gets a lot more complex quickly, because sound "point sources" act like both a point source and a point sink, and the mathematics to describe that is beautiful, but involved. Once you understand the math behind what a speaker is trying to do, you get really really amazed that they work at all, much less that they work as well as modern speakers do.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

This is (probably overly) complicated.

 

All things being equal, the main difference between what many call a point-source, like a single-driver wide-bander, and a true planar, is size. The planar is a bigger point-source than ... well ... anything else.

 

The point that the term is trying to convey is one of how the sound stage is perceived, I think. Synonyms might be something like "seamless", where there isn't any obvious discontinuity in the presentation. Line array, transmission line, mult-driver, horns, &c, all might sound different and have their own stereotypical coloration (even if a given example seems to be without it).

 

The 3.7 isn't really a point-source -- it does have a separate tweeter. The integration is pretty smooth though (again, seamless), so I suppose a bit of hyperbole could be forgiven.

 

Speaking of hyperbole, my Merlins are also commonly described as "point-sources", though they're obviously not. The drivers do sit close together, however, and given your normal seating distance, perhaps the thought is that in the sound stage they throw, such things are lost, and all you're presented with is a smooth (seamless) tapestry of sound.

 

Where the Merlin and Maggie differ is the overall size of that image at it's source. With the Merlin, the imaging is spooky, real, reach-out-and-touch it. It's not until you hear the Maggie that you realize that the images could be be big enough to step into. To get that level of size with any point-source or two-way (and more so with a multi-driver speaker), you need to crank it up and sit a ways back to let the speaker fully knit a large image together for you. The result can be quite amazing, to be sure, but the Maggie gets that for you and tosses you in the front row to boot, regardless of the volume level. That's pretty interesting, at least to me, and rather different from most other speakers I've heard.

 

Not saying it's for everybody, mind you, and I'm sure there will be some where that approach isn't their favored flavoring. Granted and to each their own. But as you can see, I kinda dug it. Enough to buy it, at least. The final proof will be integration with my own gear and my own room, but let's say that I have high hopes.

 

[4est]

Once hooked on planars, it is hard to go back. Now you may need an amp to drive them. Did you have one in mind?

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I have a Plinius SA-Reference I'm planning to drive the 3.7s with. Should be an interesting match.

 

[Ultralight]

Thanks for point source note. I understand maggies being a small point source in a very large volume of space. However, for a normally listening room, they are very large and it seems like the sound would be really diffused. I did listen to one a while ago for two minutes and it was very different form a small speaker point source - for me, I did not get a sense that I could place the instruments in pin point locations. Did I miss something?

 

Also, do Magnapans work OK if hung from the ceiling suspended off the ceiling and floor so that it looks like a floating panel?

 

Thanks,

UL

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

"...Yeah, I know. There's no music "down there". And?..."

 

First, congratulations on the Maggies. As a long time fan, what I like best about them is their ability (when properly set up) to sound, not like "great speakers" but like Music itself.

 

As to the "And?" in your comment, I beg to differ. In real life, there is plenty of music "down there". For a number of reasons (none good in my opinion), it just gets truncated on 99% of the recordings we purchase.

 

In my experience, everything has bottom, even a piccolo playing at the top of its range. Take a well made, unfiltered recording of one and disconnect the woofers to hear this.

 

A good performance space, even empty(!) has bottom too; it is part of the information that tells our brains we're in a large space.

 

Another think I love about the Maggies is their bass. As in real life (and unlike most other speakers I've heard), its bass has pitch as opposed to the somewhat undifferentiated "woof" of most other speakers.

 

Granted, they don't reach all the way down into the bottom of the bottom octave. And because their bass is so realistic, most so-called "subwoofers" sound slow and sluggish, tending to muddy up the Maggies' purity. However, I have heard them benefit from subs in some situations.

 

After owning my 3.6s for a few years, I decided to experiment with a pair of subs to get the last drop of low bass. I opted for a pair in order to keep it stereo all the way down. (Talk of bass being "non-directional" is in my experience, nonsense. Folks who say that are confusing bass "in all directions" (omnidirectional radiation of low frequencies) with bass "from all directions", which doesn't occur in Nature or with loudspeakers. Easy to test: take a good, low distortion sub outdoors and play some low frequencies at a low enough level to keep harmonic distortion products - at higher frequencies - out of the picture. Close your eyes and see if you can't locate the sub as easily as you can locate a tweeter.)

 

I experimented for weeks, thinking the subs were going to be returned for a refund, so disparate did they sound from the clarity of the Maggies. In the end though, I found that crossing them over no higher than 30 Hz -with my 3.6s running full range- and placing them close to the main pair (slightly behind and just outboard) did the trick. With very careful level adjustment, ensuring I could hear the subs absence then turned off but not their "presence" when turned on, I got the blend I'd first thought was impossible.

 

Something to think about perhaps, if you one day want to hear what is on those few recordings that leave the bottom intact.

That said, I could very happily live with un-subbed Maggies and not look back. I got the subs mostly for my work, where I need to hear everything. As a bonus, I have them for my play. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

P.S. To really hear what Maggies (or any speaker) can do, I recommend "floating" them on trios of well designed roller bearings. The differences are not at all subtle.

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Hey, Barry! Thanks for chiming in. I have to say that your site, comments, and enthusiastic love for your Maggies were rather influential and made me give second thoughts to my early dismissal of them. I mean, I was after full-range and "everyone knows" that Maggies don't do that last octave .... Well, be that as it may, I can say that most other speakers don't do that last octave either -- and sorry, no, quoting an F10 number is just poor form. If you have to say "there's usable bass", then you're not talking about full-range.

 

Which brings me to the "and" question. I meant it to be kind of a smart-ass comment. "Sure, there's not music down there, and your point is?" as if I could give a crap. Anyway, I do appreciate your defense, and of course, you're right about there being info in the lowest registers. Speaking of which, I'm very happy to hear that you've had luck with sub integration! I think I'll hold on to my pair of Rythmik subs, then, to see if I can't get a similar in-room response.

 

Which brings me to floating things. I might have gone off the deep end, following out the last conversation you started around this.

 

http://audiograb.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/what-price-true-isolation/

 

It was a fun exercise. And while I probably won't completely follow my own advice (I'll probably just opt for a Zirconia rack from Audiav), I was planning on getting a set of the Symposium Rollerblock Jr HSE, just to see. The problem I was having was what to sit them on as I have carpet ....

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

One other note on the subs: the ones I have allow a 30 Hz crossover. I found anything higher (with my 3.6s) got in the way.

 

As to isolation, I'd say beware that many products sold as isolators, in my experience, don't - at least now where it counts, starting in the low single digits frequency-wise.

 

Most racks, in my experience, are very good at keeping your components off the floor. That's it. (The one in the link, in my view, isn't going to isolate at all but will instead act as a coupler - the diametric opposite of an isolator.) Similarly, beware of claims that sheer mass (as in granite) provides isolation. Mass stores energy, then releases it - into the gear. (As an added bonus, granite can "ring".)

 

Maggies can be contagious. I've got more than a dozen friends who are now the proud owners of MMGs and I know of at least four studios, aside from my own, that use Maggies as monitors. One of them does a lot of surround mastering and has 3.6s all around the room. (!)

 

Just remember brand new ones, good as they sound out of the box, won't begin to show their magic until at least 100 hours of music has passed through them. They'll continue the process until about 400 hours of music has played, at which time, they'll fully "arrive".

Have fun!

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

P.S. If you try roller bearings, remember to place them in the largest equilateral triangle that will fit under what is being supported. (Departures from equilateral placement will inhibit freedom of motion and hence, effectiveness, in the direction of the departure.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Miska]

I wouldn't call Maggies a point source, rather a line source. With fairly high vertical directivity and thus reduced floor and ceiling reflections. While horizontally behaving closer to a point source. Except that with a tweeter at the side of a mid-woofer it requires somewhat careful toe-in to get smooth response.

 

But panels have that certain "wall of sound" and in addition to magnetostats' very good transient accuracy. ESLs being even better on that front, but more tricky on some others.

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Barry -- which rack were you referring to? "The one in the link" -- do you mean the Solid-Tech?

 

[bdiament]

Hi Scot,

 

The one that purports to "drain" vibrations via brass footers into maple shelves which would then somehow "absorb" or dissipate said vibrations.

 

First (and perhaps this is just my own limited experience of the world ;-}), when something is drained, I expect to find less of it in the place from which it was drained. The only place I've found this to be true in audio is in the case of some customers' wallets.

 

Then there is the idea that a solid, non-compliant, wood will provide any sort of control with regard to vibrations entering the gear sitting on it. To be clear, I love the look of maple. My own racks are built with solid maple legs and side rails. But the maple here has everything to do with its appearance and nothing at all to do with vibration control. I provide that separately, with air and roller bearings for each component. (I find vibration control is most effective when it is applied directly to what we want to isolate, i.e., the component.)

 

I don't believe vibrations are effectively "dissipated" by this or any other rack. The few I know that actually provide what I deem to be effective isolation convert the vibrational energy (to heat). There is no claim of dissipation, absorption or draining. In fact, this is true of all the effective means of isolation I've experienced so far.

 

Just my perspective of course.

As they say, "your mileage may vary".

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Oh, right -- you're talking about my Mapleshade rack. Yeah. That rack is a bit problematic. It's very pretty -- and pretty massive -- but yeah, I've begun to suspect that what it's really good at is giving vibrational energy freedom to roam wherever it wants to go. Maybe not. But I'll be going in a different direction, I think.

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Grant VanderMye has some stands that I'll probably be getting to use with the 3.7:

 

 

I've read that the stability they provide can dramatically improve the bass control of the panels. They also have a c-section foot-print (instead of an "H"), so floating them with a set of three Rollerblocks should be simpler. Why three though? Wouldn't four, set as a square, work just as well?

 

[zerung]

I have always been fascinated by Magnapan 3.6. Never took the plunge due to obvious shortcoming and the usual 'You do not choose Maggie, they choose you' bit.

This 3.7 is a very tempting apple and I may just bite; thanks Scot for allowing me to live vicariously till I walk the talk too.

 

 

 

[Zaphf]

Anyone else jumping on this particular horse?

 

I just got word that mine should be in by the end of this month (June). They were ordered Apr. 5th in silver aluminum. Haven't even heard a 3.7 yet, so I'm pretty excited.

 

[easypete]

I've been on board w/ Maggies since '97. I got a used pair of MMGs at a local used hifi shop for $300. I've since fallen in love with the openness of planar speakers.

 

The day the 1.6s came out, we bought them. We had been auditioning speakers for months before the 1.6s came out. Almost purchased some Martin Logan SL3s, but the 1.6s came out just in time. It took us about 4 hours of audition with the SL3s, but only 2 songs with the 1.6s before we knew they were the speakers for us.

 

We purchased the 1.7s when they were announced without an audition. We've had them for quite a while now (one of the first 50 shipped). They serve as fronts for my home theater (also made for multichannel music).

 

We've auditioned the 3.6s and the 20.1s before. The 3.6s, IMHO, lacked any reasonable bass. The 20.1s hit the spot sonically, but missed the pocket book (for now). I was never impressed by the 3.6s. When they announced the 3.7s, I couldn't wait to listen to them. They say the 3.7s take many hours (over 80) for break-in. Our dealer has had them for over a month now, and they are still not broken in. We listened to them last weekend (for the second time). They are getting better, but without the subs they have sitting next to them, they are lacking something for me, too. Maybe in another couple weeks, the bass response will start to come in to its own. Who knows. So far, I like the 1.7s better.

 

My 2-channel has Martin Logan CLSs paired with Kinergetics SW800s. Without the sub towers, I was going to either put the CLSs into storage or sell them. It was a pain to get them set up properly. We had to toy around with crossover points and curves, SW locations and direction, but now I'm in love.

 

My wife is trying to talk me into ditching the aged CLSs for the 3.7s. I think they would sound great paired w/ the SW800s. I may have to request a home audition for a weekend from my dealer once they break in properly.

 

I don't know if this helps, but I would seriously listen to the 1.7s before you make a decision. My 1.7s are paired with a couple REL Stadium IIIs.

 

 

 

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I'm told I'm up next, but no idea when next will be. This month, with luck!

 

FWIW, even though I found the 3.7 to have a far punchier bass than the 3.6, neither of them -- nor the 20.1 for that matter -- have the slam and presence of a good sub. And FWIW, I think the whole subs-are-too-slow-and-will-never-keep-up thing is a load of bollux. Subs with Maggies can be great. EasyPete, for example, has some killer subs, and while you certainly wouldn't need to climb that high on the ladder to get great sub/bass performance out of a system that sports Maggies, it can't hurt either.

 

BTW, I really liked the 1.7 too.

 

[bdiament]

Hi easypete,

 

"...They say the 3.7s take many hours (over 80) for break-in. Our dealer has had them for over a month now, and they are still not broken in. We listened to them last weekend (for the second time). They are getting better, but without the subs they have sitting next to them, they are lacking something for me, too..."

 

In my experience with Maggies, 80 hours is barely enough to say break-in has started. I wouldn't expect the bottom to begin to show what it can do for at least 100 hours. I don't consider Maggies broken-in until they've played 400 hours of music; one can hear them getting better over time as the extension and pitch definition in the low end, top end extension and smoothness, dynamic response and overall focus improve.

 

I use my 3.6s full range and support them with a pair of subs from 30 Hz down. The subs provide those final cues for things like being able to easily hear room size in recordings made in large rooms and of course for certain organ recordings. I'd probably want them with 20.1s too but would not sweat it much if I had to listen to 3.6s without subs. Just my perspective of course.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[easypete]

You may be more correct. It felt like my 1.6s break-in was about 40 hours or so. My 1.7s were about the same.

 

I know the 1.7s were incredibly harsh (due to the super tweeters) for the first month. Then, all of a sudden, they were not wearing me out. I went from not being able to listen to 3 songs, to being able to listen for 3 hours very quickly (3-4 days). I felt that was the end of the break-in, but you probably are correct. I've heard more changes in the last couple months in the low-mids.

 

With the 3.7s larger panels, break-in may be much longer. I will keep tabs w/ my local dealer over the next months. They are on my short list.

 

[bdiament]

Certainly, there are stages along the way, such as what I think is the first real change at around 100 hours when the magic of the Maggie bottom begins to reveal itself.

 

So far, I've found full, complete break-in takes about the same 400 hours (elapsed music playing time) with MMGs, 1.5s, 1.6s and 3.6s. I suspect this is consistent throughout the line.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Our 1.7's displayed small, but constant improvement for about 420 hours of play time. I would expect the 3.7s to do the same, or perhaps, even more so.

 

-Paul