Magnepan 3.7: I give up

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

I'd be tempted to put a pair of MMGs on the desk!

(My Monsoon MM-1000s are starting to show their age.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Paul R]

Yep, that works for me.

 

I seriously am thinking about ordering up a set of the minis though, as soon as they go on sale. I don't know how the Maggie Woofer would work, but I hear Wendall Dillar is claiming they sound more like the 3.7s than anything else.

 

Don't know how that could possibly be, but hey... at $1495 they might be perfect for my desk. Or the bedroom system.

 

-Paul

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Heard the minis, jeez, what was it 2 years ago? Maybe more. Cute little demo at one of the Definitive dog & pony shows. Put everything behind a screen. Had you listen, and then...taa daa! It's these little tiny speakers! Dead ringers visually for those Monsoons, but trust me, I had those Monsoons, & these were light years ahead in sound. It was an iPod feeding a Wadia converter into a Peachtree. I was incredulous. A Peachtree driving Maggies? Well, eh, no. Turns out it was fed to some mighty Ayre power amp hidden under a cloth. Maggies need watts folks, no matter how small.

 

Wendell is apparently backpedaling now and leaking it to the Planar Asylum that they are really only for a desktop and not a substitute for full-size Maggies. I'm not convinced. They sounded great. Probably better than the 1.7s. Haven't heard the 3.7s yet.

 

[Paul R]

You think these "new" ones are the same? Perhaps.

 

I would be impressed if they sound better than the 1.7s, but I am rather skeptical about that.

 

I'm even more skeptical they sound as good as the 3.7's. But hey - time marches on!

 

-Paul

 

 

[audiozorro]

backpedaling on his product's capabilities and performance. I am more inclined to believe with many others who felt that the Mini Maggies would be a threat to the existing line up of Maggie speakers. In fact several of the early opinions was that Magnepan would never release the Mini Maggies in the U.S. or they would have to find a way to diminish the performance of the speakers before the final product is released here.

 

I happen to believe that the Mini Maggies will cannibalize some sales of the larger Maggies but I believe they will also steal more sales from other speakers in general. Why - excellent sonics from fast ribbon planars, easy placement and great WAF.

 

Personally I have no interest in Maggies unless the unlikely event that my full range electrostatics crap out. But these Mini Maggies with dual woofers for secondary system that I don't need - well that's another story. So much for temptation.

 

[Paul R]

Just out of curiosity, what do you find more appealing about electrostatics than Maggies? I auditioned several pairs of Martin Logans, and besides the price escalating very quickly, they all sounded quite good.

 

The difference I hear between them is the MLs sounded precise to the point of being crisp, while the Maggies, while still being very precise, are more organic.

As silly as it sounds, the Maggies seem to work better for folk, acoustic, and orchestral music, and the MLs were better for Rock and oddly enough, for small chamber music.

 

That's only my impressions and opinions of course, and I have a lot more hours listening to Maggies than ML's (except the little Motion series guys, and they don't really count.

 

-Paul

 

 

[audiozorro]

I was sold on electrostatic speakers every since I heard the Quad ESL-57 though they were quite ugly. Thanks to the Tube God, Harvey Rosenberg, I later drooled for the attractive Quad ESL-63 with a Futterman OTL amp and Hartley subs. When I finally had the money I decided to go for the Harry Pearson’s match made in heaven, the indestructible Jim Strickland Acoustat 2+2 electrostatic speakers and the Conrad Johnson Premier One 200 watt tube amplifier. Some 25 years later I still have these musical wonders though both have been modified and brought up to state of the art musical standards by Bill Thalmann, the former technical guru at Conrad Johnson and founder of Music Technology.

 

Besides the excellent sound, the appeal to me is:

1. the full range electrostatics with no crossovers

2. virtually indestructible speakers

3. excellent speakers I already own to allow me to spend on something else

 

Another audiophile has summarized the similarities and differences as follows:

 

There are some great things about the Magnepans. They throw a HUGE image, mainly due to the immence surface area of the drivers. Instead of the piano sound coming through a 4" midrange and a 6.5" mid woofer, it has a few square FEET of driver to be reproduced on. A lot of people like the sound of the planars, they tend to sound nice, crisp, and tight. Another cool thing is the dipole radiation. That helps them make a huge soundstage. Once you get them set up properly with the backwave reflection going just right, it's magical. A wall of sound.

 

The bad...

 

Magnepans eat amps for lunch. Seriously. The MG20.1s are insane power hogs. I've heard of people biamping EACH speaker with a pair of Bryston 7BSSTs (900W into 4 ohm monoblocks). Yeah, they draw that much power. The efficiency of course is ultra low. Another problem is with placement. The sweet spot is fairly small, and you really can't move too much from it. And until you go for the 3.6R or 20.1, they don't have much bass response. And even in that range, if you drive them too hard, the panels bottom out and sound like arse. So if you have Magnepans, you're going to need a sub, probably crossed around 60Hz. Velodynes usually make a good match because they tend to be "fast" subs (matching the sonic qualities of the planar drivers).

 

Planars are of course different from ESL (Electrostatic Loudspeakers) like Martin Logans. ESLs use two electrified grids with thousands of volts between them that, when fed a signal, move the membrane inside. These speakers require a big transformer and have to be plugged in. The Quad speakers that you asked about earlier are also ESLs. But unlike the Martin Logans, the Quad's are designed to act as a near perfect point-source speaker (as opposed to the line source Magnepan), meaning all the sound radiates from one point on the panel outward, like the ripples on a pond after you toss a stone in. This helps make them more forgiving on placement.

 

ESLs tend to also be full range, or mostly full range. This means the ESL (minus the Woofer if it's a Martin Logan) takes care of all the treble and midrange. The Magnepans, on the other hand, are 2 and 3 way designs with a crossover. They have a bass panel, and then a mid panel and ribbon tweeter, or a quasi-ribbon mid-tweet panel. Only the 3.6R and MG20.1 are 3 way designs, the rest being 2-Way Quasi-Ribbon models. [End Quote]

 

 

[Jim Smith]

Agree with many of your comments.

 

Just curious, have you replaced the original thick sock/grille cloth on the 2+2s with a more open fabric?

 

Back in the day when I worked with these, we routinely changed the fabric and netted a more open, more alive presentation. May have been my imagination, but I always felt that the original sock not only reduced ultimate clarity, but even reduced dynamics to some degree.

 

Do yours have the original black socks/grille cloths?

 

[audiozorro]

My original grille socks were off-white and so my Acoustats looked like large decorative screen panels and were pleasing to my wife (especially since my previous speakers were huge Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater speakers).

 

Unfortunately after many years they turned gray so when I had the speakers modded, I also bought new light cream color socks from Ren Jenson. I believe these new socks are a similar material if not identical to the original socks.

 

I will have to add more transparent socks to my audio to-do-list. If the wife is away for a few days perhaps the first step might be to take off the grille socks just to hear how good it might get.

 

[Jim Smith]

Yep, that's a good test.

 

It wasn't cheap, but we used a sort-of-beige-color raw silk. Looked elegant. Sounded fabulous.

 

[curbfeeler]

Hmmm... I have not experienced the 20.1, but I have much experience of the MG 3.6 and MG 3.7 speakers. These do not require anything like 900W of power. I use the Parasound Halo A 21 satisfactorily at SPL peaks of 102 dB at the extreme with either speaker, and these have never “bottomed out” or seemed distressed in any fashion. I would wager one couldn’t support the same assertion about Quad or most other electrostatics. I can’t imagine why anyone would need more volume. It wouldn’t be desirable (for hearing’s sake) or enjoyable.

The assertion that the MG 3.6 doesn’t have adequate bass is simply wrong.

I’ve never heard an electrostatic loudspeaker, barring hybrids, that had adequate bass. That includes the highly touted CLX.

 

[4est]

IMO, both types of speakers have strengths and weaknesses. I have owned MG 1&2 and now 1.6. I also currently own Quad 63s, Soundlab A3 and a pair of Dayton Wright xg10 that do not work (no surprise).

 

Magnepans play louder with deeper base.

 

Electrostatics have more resolution. Relieve them of the lowest octave or two properly, and they will astound you.

 

The Dayton Wrights are the exception. They can play extremely loud (there was a version for PA systems) with a lot of punch when they work and the covers are done correctly. A lot of that has to do with the sodium hexa fluoride gas inside the speaker. It allows for a much higher bias voltage and the gas's compression properties give it better energy transfer as I understand it. Martin Logans are the least desirable of all of the ESLs available except for maybe the newer Chinese one whose name escapes me.

 

A pair of Quad 63s(2805) w/ the open baffle Gradient subwoofer paired with the right amps is simply magical.

 

[curbfeeler]

I heard the Quad 63 with a Janis sub some years ago, and though small scale the sound was captivating. SOTA, Alphason, Grado, VTL Ultimate, VTL monoblock 100s and Brisson cabling.

The Dayton Wright's always seemed to be a science project.

 

[audiozorro]

Maggies are power hungry and it’s not that they can’t sound loud with lower power amps, it’s that they sound best with very powerful amps. If you’re ever lucky to hear your 3.6 Maggies with the Bryston 28B SST2 1000 watt solid state amp you will realize the big difference.

 

Here’s what Arthur Salvatore has to say about Maggies:

 

- All the speakers from Magnepan, including the Reference Tympani bass panels above, require above average power, and louder-than-life sound pressure, to sound "alive". This is because they very noticeably subtract low-level information; particularly dynamic shifts and harmonic decays.

 

They are excellent in many other sonic areas, but this one serious weakness, especially within this list's set of priorities, disqualifies them from being a Reference at this time. They also lack "cohesiveness", which is the ability to sound as of "one sonic cloth". However, they may still be an excellent choice for audiophiles looking for an Entry Level speaker, if purchased used at a good discount.

 

If a reader wants their best model for the money, I would advise buying the 3.5, used only, which should be easy to find. It's worth the effort and patience to save up the extra money to purchase the 3.5 instead of living with their less expensive models. It has all of their many strengths, and less of their obvious weaknesses. Newer (still used) versions of the 3.5 are also desirable. [End Quote]

 

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Speakers.html#BEST

 

Of course the best sounding Maggies bar none are the Tympani speakers and these are the only planars that truly provide superb bass as compared to the best bass that any other kind of speaker has to offer. My go to test record for jaw dropping bass used to be the cannon shots on the 1812 Overture Telarc recording.

 

http://www.audioreview.com/cat/speakers/floorstanding-speakers/magnepan/tympani-i-u/prd_120045_1594crx.aspx

 

Another difference that I believe between Maggies and most other planars including electrostatics, is that Maggies seem to sound best with solid state amps as opposed to tube amps. The old solution for Maggies of course was to bi-amp or tri-amp with tube amps on the top end and solid state on the bottom end despite the sonic disadvantages or issues with that approach.

 

Please don’t get me wrong for I love Maggies and for their cost I truly believe they are giant killers when properly set up. Which brings me to my final point that I believe that Maggies are very sensitive to proper or improper setup (more so than many other speakers). IMO when I run into fellow audiophiles who don’t like or are not impressed with Maggies, I blame their negative opinion on improper speaker set up.

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi audiozorro,

 

I believe Mr. Salvatore's comments date back quite a few years. Certainly in the past decade or more, Maggies most certainly have not needed to be turned up to sound "alive". This has become increasingly true as we get closer to today. And the latest models simply make this statement completely wrong.

 

Ditto for comments about lack of "cohesiveness" and sounding as if cut from "one sonic cloth". Those things applied a long, long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away ;-}), not in the past decade. Again, this has only become increasingly true as we move along the time line to today.

 

As to bass, let's start in the upper bass: Maggies have few peers in this area and this has been true all the way back to the Tympanis. Unlike all too many speakers, including many that cost significantly more, they deliver pitch rather than undifferentiated "woof".

 

In the low bass, well, how many speakers deliver real low bass? Now subtract the ones that cost in the upper range of 5 figures or more. Quite simply, most speakers are going to need help if the listener wants to hear the bottom of the bottom octave (on the minority of recordings that aren't filtered well before this). That's why there are subs. And a few of them are actually good for music and not just shaking tushies during cinematic explosions. I use a pair, crossed over at 30 Hz, leaving the 3.6s running full range. But if I didn't have the subs, I wouldn't fret much.

 

Placement? I have yet to encounter a speaker of any design or provenance that doesn't require careful placement to get the best from it. I find dipoles are actually easier than quasi-omni monopoles (i.e. boxes) because the former tend to excite only the room in the front to back dimension (radiating little vertically or sideways) where the latter excites all three dimensions; triple the "room boom" for your money. ;-}

 

Power? Yes, Maggies drink it. Specifically, it is current they thirst for.

I consider this more a fact than a "problem". All the truly great systems I've heard involve a lot of power.

 

What I hear as relatively unique in Maggies (and completely unique at anywhere less than orders of MAGnitude more expense) is their ability to sound not like "good speakers" but like Music itself. I heard it the first time I heard Tympani 1Ds (in 1972?), I hear it even in MMGs and there's only more of it in the larger models.

 

All just my perspective of course.

And yes, I've decided to make the jump to 3.7s.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[audiozorro]

Have you ever considered getting the Peter Gunn mods for your 3.6 Maggies?

 

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue37/magnestand.htm

 

http://www.indiespinzone.com/magnestand.html

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi audiozorro,

 

I've never heard Mr. Gunn's stands or mods but frankly, once I heard my Maggies "afloat" on my Hip Joints roller bearings (first with my old 1.5s, then with my 3.6s), I didn't feel a different stand would improve things further. But that said, I'm always open to listening; just don't know anyone that has those particular mods.

 

I understand the 3.7 uses improved crossover components in addition to the other changes in its design. So, outside of the "floating" platforms I made for my 3.6s (which very happily for me, will be just the right size for the 3.7s), I'm going to listen to them "stock" for a while.

 

There is currently something like an 8 week wait before the speakers are shipped. Add to that another 400 hours (what I've found Maggies need) for full break-in, and it will be close to 4 months (!) before my own 3.7s show me what they can do in my room.

 

It is a journey I'm very much looking forward to.

 

As an aside, I must say just how very fortunate I feel. I keep reading about WAF and hearing about it from fellow audiophiles (at least from the males). It was my wife who suggested I get the 3.6s a few years ago and the other evening, it was my wife, seeing the ad for 3.7s in a magazine I was reading and having just asked me what I'd like for my (upcoming) birthday, who suggested I get the 3.7s. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

At least, anymore.

 

The 1.7s here are quite happy with 120wpc, and at that, can play far far louder than I can listen to before they start to breakup.

 

I've tried some big hairy power pumping monster sized mono blocks on them, and of course, they sounded better, but I think that is mostly the sound of the amps, not their power rating.

 

Heck, they will play with a teeny Jolida tube amp, but you can hear the amp straining when it gets really loud.

 

-Paul

 

P.S. Not that I don't think they like power, but they like current more than raw power specs. It takes power to move those huge things.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

Indeed, it is current those girls like to drink.

 

It isn't so much loudness that the beefier amps supply but control, not to mention a certain freedom when the going gets complex.

 

Maggies are wonderful with 100 watt amps. They're truly sweet with tubes too. But with more "juice", they're more wonderful and even sweeter. ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Paul R]

@Barry

 

Oh, I believe you. I just am not looking forward to spending more on an amp than on the speakers. (grin)

 

Listening to Coppelia again, and it just sounds absolutely wonderful through the Maggies. Makes me laugh out loud in some parts. Makes me want to do more upgrades...

 

-Paul

 

 

[Gregor Samsa]

I think they are the same Minis that they demoed years ago. The last time I saw them was here:

 

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/home-theater-speakers/959-magnepan-mmc-2-speaker-blind-review.html

 

Scroll down to the third picture. If you can tear your gaze away from the stunning back of my girlfriend's head, you can see one sitting next to Wendell. It looked exactly like my memory of what I had heard previously. Unfortunately, they didn't hook them up, being all preoccupied by the mmc-2 demo.

 

BTW, the mmc-2s sounded nice, but not quite as great as John says here. Within the limitations of sense memory, the Minis easily bested them.

 

Yes, that is a 1.7 that they were using as a speaker stand. Go figure.

 

[Paul R]

Most Magnepan deals apparently have 'em, but they are non-functional. Have to wait and see I suppose, and you may be spot on. There is always hope.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

"That looks like one of the demo jobs..."

 

One local dealer (from whom I purchased my 1.5s years ago) referred to them as "Show-pans" (as in Chopin?). ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[4est]

Dayton Wrights were a science project. Mike Wright was way ahead of his time, but didn't have the manufacturing wisdom to pull it off. A shame really.

 

[Paul R]

 

This has to be in the running for the all time perfect Pun. Best laugh of the month!

 

Thanks

-Paul