Magnepan 3.7: First Impressions
I know it’s a stretch, but for the sake of argument let’s say that you don’t have six dimes to drop on a pair of the highest-fidelity, lowest-coloration, fullest-range loudspeakers I’ve heard in my home—the $60k Magico Q5s. What to do? Well, there are always the $40k TAD CR-1s or the $30k Morel Fat Ladies or the $22k MartinLogan CLXes, among many many other worthies from Scaena, Nola, Wilson, Focal, YG, Hansen, Vandersteen, sonus faber, MBL, Verity, Revel, Avalon, Quad, and Magico itself. But—stretch with me, again—let’s say you don’t have that kind of green, either. Let’s say you’re…well, me. You lust for ultra-high-fidelity sound, but don’t have the coin for the Big Boys. What then are your options?
Ladies and gents, allow me to introduce you to the speaker I would choose: the $5495 Magneplanar 3.7 ribbon/quasi-ribbon dipole.
You will be reading all about this wonderful new transducer from Magnepan in HP’s Workshop in Issues 212 and 213—and I myself will chime in, briefly, in Issue 214. But to set the table, let me begin by saying (as HP does) that the 3.7 solves the problem that has bothered me most about “true ribbon” Maggies—and solves it completely. As you may recall from my 1.7 review, I’ve shied away from Maggie’s “true ribbons” not because I don’t like Maggie’s ribbons but because I like them too much. They are so good—so much faster, lower in distortion, and higher in fidelity than Maggie’s planar-magnetic drivers—that they audibly tend to call attention to themselves.
In the earliest versions of true-ribbon Maggies, this attention-grabbing discontinuity was marked. The ribbons weren’t just better than the planar-magnetic drivers they were then paired with, they also played louder (or were higher in sensitivity, which is functionally the same thing). Unless you damped the wall behind them (easier said than done without unintended consequences elsewhere in the passband) or padded them down with resistors (ditto) or added a whomping subwoofer (which tended to offset the extra treble energy with added bass energy, albeit at a substantial price in coherence, transparency, resolution, and neutrality), you could invariably hear the true ribbons as a separate element in the presentation. Moreover, because the ear is particularly sensitive to parts of the bandwidth in which the true ribbons play, hearing them didn’t just ruin coherence; it also added excessive upper midrange and treble brightness to the overall presentation. In short, despite their considerable virtues—and there are few speakers I’ve heard that can make voices, in particular, sound as breathtakingly realistic as Maggies do—the Maggie 3 Series and the Maggie 20 Series speakers failed to negotiate the very first hurdle any loudspeaker faces (at least in my listening room): They failed to disappear. In fact, I was always aware of the ribbon-Maggies’ presence because the discontinuity between the true-ribbon tweeter and the quasi-ribbon/planar-magnetic drivers was always obvious.
As the years passed, Maggie tamed this brightness and discontinuity to an extent, but even the most recent true ribbons (and with Maggie, “recent” has, until the last couple of years, been measured in decades) have had an audible vestige of this sonic legacy. The 3.7s are the first true ribbon Magnepans that do not.
I really don’t know how Maggie has done what it’s done here—and Wendell Diller, who paid me a visit a couple of days ago to install the speakers, ain’t saying—but if I were to speculate, I would guess that the ribbon’s output has been damped down somewhat and its distortion (and the break-up modes of the other drivers playing alongside it) reduced—in part via a re-engineered crossover. I do know that Maggie is using much, much higher-quality parts in the 3.7 crossover than it has in earlier 3 Series speakers (which is one reason why the 3.7s cost what they cost), and past experience (with Magico and Morel speakers) suggests that when crossovers are successfully re-engineered to reduce out-of-passband “break-up” modes, the sonic effects are sizeable and easy to hear. There is this, as well. Earlier 3 Series Maggies used planar-magnetic panels for the midrange and the bass. In the 3.7, Maggie has substituted quasi-ribbon drivers for the planar-magnetic ones (just as it did with the smaller 1.7s introduced last year). The break-up modes of these faster, lower-distortion quasi-ribbon drivers, optimized via Maggie’s new crossover, may be considerably lower in level than those of the planar-magnetic panels they’ve replaced, whose break-up modes may have been further roughing up what was already a too-bright treble driver.
I’m guessing about this, of course, but there is no doubt that the 3.7’s ribbon tweeter is no longer “there,” no longer an easily audible and obviously separate part of the sonic presentation. The blend is so complete—and so successful—that I would have to say this is the most coherent Magneplanar I’ve yet heard. There is simply no part of the frequency spectrum you can point to and say, “This sounds different than or stands apart from the rest of the frequency spectrum.”
Are the 3.7s more coherent than the very coherent all-quasi-ribbon 1.7s? Yes. And I’ll tell you precisely why. Despite their excellence, the 1.7s still have a bit of “Maggie grain” to their presentation (as I said in my review)—a low-level, higher-frequency sandiness or spittiness or sibilance that is mostly audible in quiet passages or silences, but that is actually there all the time, overlaying the soundfield like a very fine scrim, sort of like groove noise on a well-used LP (although much lower in level). It is only when you hear loudspeakers that don’t have this driver/crossover/enclosure grain, such as the Magico Q5s, that you become aware—acutely, actually—of how much this noise detracts from a realistic illusion of voices and instruments.
Grain—whether it is being added by drivers, enclosures, crossovers, electronics, sources, or all of the above—tends to make voices and instruments sound the slightly peppery way that half-screened photographs look, as if they are composed of tiny dots of information separated by tiny dots of noise, rather than “whole,” continuous-tone sonic images. In addition to adding a texture to music and backgrounds, this noise also tends to make instruments sound slightly flatter in aspect than they do in life, as if they are (almost literally) being viewed through a screened window rather than in open air.
The 3.7s have eliminated or, at least, greatly reduced this granular noise. I would assume this is a direct result of the more successful blending of all drivers, but in particular of the way the “true ribbon”—with its inherently lower distortion—has been folded into the mix. In my view this is almost as significant an achievement as Maggie’s sensational new blend of true ribbon and quasi-ribbon panels. This is a “noise” I’ve associated with Maggies since I first heard the I-Us. Here it has been vanquished to the degree that well-recorded voices, like Melody Gardot’s on “Who Will Comfort Me?” from My One and Only Thrill [Verve], sound entirely grainless, three-dimensional, free-standing, and “there” (provided, of course, that you are using electronics capable of reproducing dimensionality and not adding grain of their own, such as the Technical Brain TBC-Zero v2 or ARC Ref 40 preamp, Technical Brain TBP-Zero EX or ARC 610T amps, and the Technical Brain TEQ/TMC-Zero or ARC Reference 2 phonostages).
Whether we consciously acknowledge it or not, “realism” in hi-fi playback systems tends to work on a sliding scale; how “there” a voice or instrument sounds depends on how many of the same qualities we hear in life (when we hear these voices or instruments singing or playing) are being incorporated into the presentation. Like the Magico Q5s, the Maggie 3.7s are working at a very high level on this scale (at least, they are in the midrange and the treble). Given a first-rate source, they are recovering more dynamic/harmonic information and delivering that information with lower distortion and more lifelike timing (that is, with the more lifelike durations of transient, steady-state tone, and decay) than any other speakers in their price range I’ve heard. In the midband and the treble, they are almost literally moving the bar up on the “realism scale” to the level of some of the world’s greatest (and most expensive) transducers.
Although their exceptional blend of drivers and unparalleled (for Maggies) lack of grain and distortion is already apparent, there are some areas of performance I’m not yet sure of. Timbres are fabulously realistic on most instruments, imaging is unusually precise (though life-sized), soundstaging is vast, and the treble is simply phenomenal—as quick, open, airy, and extended as almost anything I’ve heard regardless of price. But I haven’t gotten a firm fix yet on the 3.7s’ bass extension and power-handling.
I don’t want to leave the wrong impression. There is nothing wrong with—and certainly nothing discontinuous about—the 3.7s’ bass, which blends as seamlessly with the midband and the treble as the treble now blends with everything else. I’m just not yet sure how deep these speakers are capable of going in my smallish room—or how much power they are capable of reproducing as they descend in frequency. When I heard the 3.7s at CES, I felt that the bass didn’t have quite the same amazing presence as the midrange and treble; in my listening room I have something of the same impression. For instance, on the truly phenomenal EMI recording of Schnittke’s Second Sonata (“Quasi una sonata”), the 3.7s reproduce Kremer’s violin—and all its dynamics (which on this showy piece range from quadruple-p to quadruple-f and all stops between)—with very nearly the same speed, resolution, and in-the-room-with-you realism of the $60k Magico Q5s (the highest-fidelity speakers I’ve yet heard). This is remarkable—in fact, unparalleled—in a $5.5k loudspeaker. Ditto for the upper bass, middle, and top octaves of Gavrilov’s concert grand. What I’m not getting—at least, at this time—is thunderous power and precise pitch definition in the low-to-midbass that I hear via the Q5s on the lower-octave sforzandos of that piano. Nor am I getting quite the same dynamic range on fortissississimos. (Of course, this is a grossly unfair comparison. One of the Q5s glories—and one of the things that you are paying $60k for—is its phenomenal bass extension, resolution, power-handling, and sheer realism and its overall dynamic range.)
At the moment I would guesstimate that in my room, with the gear I’m currently using, the 3.7s are going down (flat) to about 50Hz. I consulted with HP, who’s had the 3.7s in house for considerably longer than I have, and he tells me that on initial setup the 3.7s were going down to around 50Hz in his Room Two, just as they are in my Room One and Only. However, he also tells me that with break-in (he recommends playing back a pipe-organ recording for several days) the 3.7s gain another 10Hz of bottom, and now descend to roughly 40Hz (after which they roll-off precipitously). Since Mr. P and I generally hear things alike—and since I’ve had this bass “break-in” experience with other Magneplanars—I will withhold judgment on 3.7 bass until I’ve played the darn things more.
Remember, thus far I’ve only listened to the 3.7s for three days with one set of electronics. I haven’t broken them in; I haven’t firmly settled on final positioning; I haven’t tried them with a variety of ancillary gear. The bass thing—and other details—will become clearer as I listen more, and I will report my findings as time goes by. For the moment, suffice it to say what I’ve already said: Even on a short listen, these are the speakers I’d buy if I couldn’t buy the Q5s, because in many ways (certainly from the lower midrange through the top treble) they come as close to the sound of the Q5s as I have gotten—or that HP has gotten with his own reference speakers—without spending Q5 money.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
You can tell a planar pro by the tape on the floor. :-)
My impression of that "Maggie grain" or mylar sound is that it's caused by diaphragm resonances. At least, it's the sound that I hear when I take the grille cloth off and tap the diaphragms -- a sort of snare drum effect. I once compared a planar magnetic woofer and quasi-ribbon tweeter and the quasi-ribbon tweeter seemed to be much better damped and have less of an audible resonance when it was tapped. So maybe that's what's happened here, in the bass, better diaphragm damping from the quasi ribbon foil? Whereas the true ribbons shouldn't suffer much from resonances, as I understand it the diaphragm resonance of a true ribbon tweeter is below the range of the frequencies reproduced by the driver.
Also, I see in HP's review that Magnepan has apparently gone to a 6 dB/octave crossovers in the 3.7 as they did between the woofer and tweeter/supertweeter sections in the 1.7. I'm wondering whether that mightn't account, along with the quasi-ribbon woofer, for the improved uniformity and coherence that you and HP observed. (The 1.7 also seems to have a 2.5 way rather than a 3 way crossover, with both the tweeter and supertweeter handing the lower highs.)
Josh,
Your comment about Maggie grain having a "snare drum effect" is precisely correct. I wish I'd thought of the analogy.
I really don't know all that Maggie has done to the 3.7, save for revamping the crossover in mysterious ways. I've made my best guesses, but guesses are just that. Like I said, Wendell isn't spilling the beans, but the sonic benefits are obvious.
Jon
Come to think of it, it's Jim Winey who came up with the drum analogy, when he coined the name "Tympani" . . . I guess "Snare Drum 1-U" didn't make the cut. :-)
Hope you don't think I was criticizing your speculations, BTW! Speculation is all we can do as long as Wendell keeps his secrets close, and I don't blame him for wanting to do so. Besides which, speculation is half the fun. :-)
Snare-Drum I-U!!
You know the sound we're referring to isn't like a snare drum being struck with a stick; it's like a snare drum being whisked with a brush.
I was really a bit surprised when I tried tapping the surface, and heard the same sound I'd been hearing faintly in the background for so many years. But, as you say, when you're listening it's like a gentle whisk, easy to tune out (for me, anyway).When I tapped it it was louder, but still more muted/damped than a drum would be, particularly on the quasi ribbon section, which was more like a dull thud or thunk. I was trying to see if shorting the terminals made a difference because of electrical damping, but my experiment wasn't particularly productive since my taps weren't equal enough. (And people wonder why we nerds have trouble with women . . . )
"(And people wonder why we nerds have trouble with women . . . )"
Just Nerds?
Oops. Asked and answered below. My bad....
Amandela77
Thanks for your preliminary thoughts Jon. I've never used as much toe in as you have in your set up. I'll have to try this w/ my 3.6s. The 3.6s are far more coherent that my previous 2.5R, but I do agree that the ribbon can display brightness and harshness and this varies w/ equipment and recordings. I recently replaced my LS16 w/ a Ref3 and to my surprise the 3.6s overall improvement in coherence and tonality was quite dramatic. I've ordered a set of 3.7s "sound unheard" simply because conceptually the QR panels seem to be a better choice for the true ribbon. Seems that the wait for delivery will reach into April or perhaps May. Dave
Thanks Jon, would you say the 3.7 is lacking in the bass compared to the 3.6?
Sceptic,
I was not a fan of the 3.6 because of the ribbon issue and because of its bass, with which I had a problem similar to the one I'm having with the 3.7, albeit in an entirely different--and much larger--room (a problem I never was able to cure with the 3.6s). I'd have to say that in both areas the 3.7 is dramatically better than the 3.6. I should also note that--as has been my past experience with Maggies and as The Great One predicted--the 3.7's bass is already beginning to fill in some. The speaker is audibly better in the bass range today than it was yesterday, and it was audibly better yesterday than it was the day before. Break-in is no joke with these panels. I'm told by those in the know that it takes at least 30 days of heavy rotation to get the bass panels "loosened up" enough to show 80% of their best and that the final 20% will take better than a year of play. For instance, yesterday I listened to the Ravel Piano Trio on a Phillips LP. Whereas on day one i wasn't getting the bottom octaves of the piano with much power or extension, last night on the Ravel the bottom octave sounded considerably weighiter and more natural in timbre (and incredibly well-defined) via Technical Brain electronics. It is interesting--and entirely praise-worthy--how transparent to sources the 3.7s are. Like the Magico Q5s (though, frankly, not as completely) they accurately reflect the differences in miking schemes and recording/mastering technologies. For instance the Ravel LP was digitally recorded and mastered and sounds it in its thinned-down, digital-like timbres and textures. But put on a recording from analog's heyday, like the 1961 Vox box of the Beethoven late quartets with the Loewenguth Quartet (mastered by "Doctor" Rudolph van Gelder, no less), and you'd think you'd switched to an entirely different set of speakers and playback electronics--when in fact you are listening to an entirely different set of recording electronics and microphones. It's an amazing difference that few speakers (and electronics and sources) will report on so accurately.
Jon
JV, get your 3.7s up on Myesound stands with Stillpoints OEM feet or Stillpoints Ultra SS under them.
Then you may discover what kind of bass the speaker is capable of reproducing. Grant VanderMye tells me the stands for the 3.6 will fit the 3.7.
Thanks for your thoughts Jon. I went ahead and ordered a pair of 3.7s in off-white/cherry today, will arrive here in Sweden late March.
Welcome back JV, it's been a while since we've seen you on these pages. Get 'em cookin' with the ARC gear before it gets too hot and you start schvitzin! (G)
Jon,
I am interested to know why the tweeter ribbon is set on the inside vs. outside in your room photo, and also to know how far back from the speakers you listen.
I have ordered a pair of the 3.7s to be used in my 20 x 12.5 x 8 dedicated listening room. I'm eager to experiment with various placments (long wall vs. short wall; tweeter in vs. out). Any thoughts would be most helpful.
Thanks!
Al
Abomwell,
The tweeters are on the inside because that is what Wendell Diller of Magnepan recommended. I have not tried them on the outside yet, but HP reports that the 3.7s lose some image focus and soundstage perspective with the tweets on the outside. Where I sit is about ten feet or so from the loudspeakers.
Placement has always been critical with Magneplanars (and other planar speakers). I honestly know where they got the reputation for being "easier" to fit into average listening rooms than dynamic speakers. Well, I do know--it is because their figure-eight dispersion patterns supposedly eliminates sidewall reflections. But the truth is that planars and 'stats are among the most difficult speakers to optimally place. For instance, it is relatively easy for me to get "more" bass (not necessarily "better" bass, BTW) from the 3.7s in my room, simply by moving the speaker closer to the rear wall; however, the price that is paid in midrange immediacy, neutrality, resolution of fine detail,and astonishingly lifelike presence is simply too steep to justify the benefits (at least, to my ear). While the same trade-offs apply to dynamic speakers, with Maggies tiny changes in distance-to-rear-wall and toe-in can sometimes have even more dramatic effects largely because the rear-waves of their drivers aren't being damped and terminated by an enclosure.
My best advice is to start by following HP's "rule of thirds," placing the speakers about a third of the way out into the room from the rear wall and a third of the way from the sidewalls, whether you begin with the speakers on the short wall or the long one (I would certainly try both, if possible). In the past, I've had better luck placing planars a bit closer together and a bit further from sidewalls than the rule of thirds would suggest (this placement seems to reinforce the mid-to-upper bass and reduce brightness). While planar dipoles supposedly take sidewalls out of the equation because of their dispersion pattern, that is only true if the speakers are parallel to the rear wall (i.e., if the speakers are not toed-in). As soon as you start toeing them in--and the 3.7s are designed to be listened to with considerable toe-in (as per the photograph above)--the back of the speaker will be at an angle to the rear wall, meaning that side walls and often corners (depending on room size) may come back into play.
Jon
Post of the day, JV!
Thanks for a great intro. Having had Maggies for 25 years I finally have been able to put to words what I heard because of your description of the noise etc. Voices and more sound incredibley realistic to me on these speakers thru the years but something was missing. I always heard a bit of that brightness and just attributed it to my listening room(s). I have lived with the 20.1 for 3 years now. When I first got them my dealer from IL Audio Consultants told me to allow a few months for the bass break in. He was correct. As you noticed it keeps improving in just a few days but after a few months it really has acchieved it's best.
I look forward to the upgrade for the 20.1...hopefully at next CES.
I have tried to return to box speakers but have not been able to. Perhaps if I ever win the lottery I can investigate the Q5.
BTW if I remeber correctly Jacob Heilbrun places the tweters to the outside on his 20.1 set up.
I have found that the image and focus works best for me with tweeters inside.
The resistors that Magnepan supplied to curtail the brightness in the tweeters never worked for me because they reduced the dynamics and took some "life" out of the sound.
Thanks for the preview and the ability to express your listening discoveries with metaphors and the like.
Ed
In listening to a 2011 RMAF presentation by JIm Smith he talked about in his experience that with dipoles that the equilateral triangle method usually did not work. It was more like the distance between the tweeters would be 70-75 % of the distance from the tweeter to the listening position. Of course this was a rule of thumb and a starting point .
Jon, thanks very much for you very helpful suggestions!
Does the perceived sound stage width change when the tweeters are placed inside vs. outside?
Al
Al,
MajesticG covers the basics in his post below.
I must say that tweeters in in my room I'm certainly not lacking for soundstage width or depth. Moreover, there is a gestalt with orchestra that is unlike anything I've heard save for the Q5s. Something really extraordinary has been accomplished here (and with the Magicos) in group delay. On a recording like the great Mravinky live performance of the Bartok Music for Strings, ensembles playing tuttis sound more like real-life ensembles playing tuttis than any other speaker I've heard, save for the Magico Q5s (which also have zero group delay). Orchestras don't get loud in a selective fashion, with certain instruments or choirs of instruments sticking out from the group (unless of course they're meant to). They get loud as a unit, without losing their identity as individual instruments within that unit. It is an absolutely thrilling and natural effect. In fact, it's so much more like the real thing that I am a little take aback by this kind of large-scale realism in a $5495 speaker. I'll have more to say on this subject soon.
Jon
Thanks to both MajesticG and you for the kind responses. I'm greatly encouraged to hear your comments regarding large-scale realism as large-scale orchestral music represent the majority of my CD and LP collection!
Al
my experience has been: tweeters inside smaller stage but more focused image...tweeters outside =widers soundstage but less focused.
Jonathan, you haven't commented on one issue which was pertinent to past Maggies: the ability to be played at low level convincingly. My past experience with Maggies has been that they need to be played at realistic levels (read: LOUD!) to really come alive, unlike many 'stats. What sayeth thou? And does the new diaphragm design reduce the drum-head resonances of old? Thanks for the very detailed & informative posting!
hi-end down under
Jonathan,
I had maggie 2.5's for many years and those years always stand out as the time my system was so involving and compelling....late nights playing album after album...I must getting older as those days don't happen too often these days...I blame it on digital but am now reenergized and excited with hi-rez computer based audio.
I am likely going to order the 3.7's and have 100 stereo watts of Mark Levinson power to drive them but wonder if the 3.7's be underpowered? I would welcome your thoughts on this.
Warm Regards
WDW
WDW,
The Maggie 3.7s are remarkable for all sorts of reasons, but one of the most obvious and impressive is the way Magnepan has successfully addressed three traditional Maggie weaknesses: 1) Integration of the ribbon driver in a "true ribbon" Maggie; 2) reduction or elimination of Maggie grain; and 3) resolution of low-level detail at low volume levels. On this last point, Maggies have traditionally had to be played louder to boost low-level details into audibility. Of course, the necessity to turn up the volume to bring the Maggies "to life" had two consequences: You needed a super-powerful amp to make Maggies sound their best; and resolution of pianissimos at true pianissimo levels was more or less impossible because the Maggies couldn't be played (satisfactorily) at true pianissimo levels. The 3.7s have changed this. Not only do they sound remarkable at louder volumes (although they aren't unlimited in dynamic range at the loud end of the loudness spectrum the way the best cones sometimes seem to be); they also (and this is almost a first with Maggies) sound remarkable at lower volume levels. In other words, they are capable of the kind of low-level resolution at low volumes levels that was previously the exclusive domain of electrostats (the Magico Q5s do this exact same trick--somewhat better, actually--for cone speakers).
This doesn't mean that your 100Wpc Levinson amp will be able to play the Maggie 3.7s at the volume levels you prefer (particularly if you prefer to listen at very loud levels and listen in a large room). What it does mean, however, is that one of the chief reasons for using super-powerful amps with Magneplanars (i.e., to achieve the high volume levels that were once necessary to hear low-level details) is no longer valid. This said, though marginally higher in sensitivity than the 3.6s, the 3.7s are still relatively low-sensitivity loudspeakers that are gonna need some juice.
Jon
Thank you for your comments....any minumum power recommendations?
Cheers, wdw
How big is your room and what kind of music do you listen to?
Room dimensions 12wide x 18deep x 8high...musical tastes are varied and eclectic....jazz, opera, piano, some rock and roll, some Lyle Lovett...Keith Jarret big time....Mozart ... etc
Not a head banger but do, on occasion, play it loud
WDW
Do you have any measurements of just how loud you play it? Ideally a true peak reading, but a reading of the loudest passage with a Radio Shack meter can help, just tack 10 dB on for a ballpark estimate. Once you know that you can make a pretty good "by the book" estimate of minimum amp size based on the 83 dB efficiency spec, your listening distance (remember that dipoles fall off as 1/R rather than 1/R^2), and a nominal 2 dB of room gain.
With judicious use of the volume control, you should be fine, as I believe the Levinson amp produces 200 watts into 4 ohms.
Have fun!
Thanks...yes it doubles output as the impedence lowers....I suspect you're right and the Levinson will be fine...My next electronic purchase will be a new DAC so not to keen to upgrade the power amp at this point...well, a new Dac and some Shunyata power grooming gear are the order of business following the 37's....Cheers and happy listening to all.
Jon,
I have a couple questions regarding the 3.7 treble:
1. Are you using the resistor to attenuate the tweeters?
2.How does the overall treble of the 3.7s compare with the 1.7s? (I had an opportunity to hear both the 1.7s and the 3.6s in similar rooms at an audio dealer in Scottsdale. Neither room had much acoustic treatment other than a carpet. The 1.7s sounded significantly brighter overall than did the 3.6s. I preferred the top end of the 3.6s. Of note is that the 1.7s were new and not fully broken in compared with the nine-month old 3.6 models).
Thanks!
Al
I suspect that the folks at Magnepan have always been concerned about the conventional wisdom that their speakers require high current, high wattage amplifiers for their speakers to perform optimally. Let's face it, it's not a "bargain" speaker if you need a megbuck front end to allow the speaker to shine. By increasing the ability to provide low level detail at lower volumes and lower power requirements Magnepan can market the 3.7 to a wider audience of buyers. According to the dealer my 3.7s are on the production line so I look forward to my own audition by the end of the month.
I would like to upgrade my 1.6 crossovers in the next year, as the current parts leave something to be desired, and many online have noted large gains with improved parts. I wish I could get an idea of the gains from such an endeavor, and perhaps Jonathan you help triangulating the improvements by hazarding a guess as to what percentage of improvement you've found the new x-over changes have wrought to the sound. They obviously don't exist in a vacuum of course, but given the ribbons are perhaps the same, and I see you have heard large gains in the treble realm, do you have any further thoughts about improvements in the treble region?
-Glotz
While they share a magnet assembly and form factor the 1.7 is a very different design from the 1.6, 2.5 way rather than 2 way. So what works for the 1.7 won't necessarily work for the 1.6. Among other things, the 1.7's tweeter has more surface area owing to the two extra wires of the supertweeter, which could facilitate its use with a 6 dB/octave crossover. OTOH, you can safely upgrade the crossover using better components of the same value. The 1.7 uses better caps than the 1.6, and that would likely be a worthwhile upgrade.
Jon,
It sounds as if the important criteria for speakers have been satisfied or corrected in the 3.7s with the possible exception of sufficient bass response below 40Hz. Would the use of a subwoofer satisfy the bass void if it were used to fill-in below, say, 50Hz? I have a JL Fathom -12 sub and wonder if it would properly integrate with the QR bass panel of the 3.7s. I would appreciate your thoughts very much.
Best,
Al
Al, you asked about a subwoofer.
In my experience bi-amplification is key to achieve proper integration of a MG3.x with a subwoofer. More specifically it was night and day using bi-amplification to integrate a REL Storm subwoofer with a MG3.3, it seems that a passive crossover has too large of an impact on the woofer signal. I also plan to integrate a REL B1 with a MG3.6 - I also have a JL Fathom F113 but my experience is that using the high-level subwoofer input, taking the signal directly at the woofer's amplifier output, is necessary for seamless integration and the Fathom does not have a high-level input.
Now if I could exchange both my 3.3 (which is in France) and my 3.6 (which is in Colorado) to get a 3.7...
Guy
here's a
here's a little audio story...my local stereo store owner was, some years ago, taken on a field visit trip to Audio Research and, by extension, to Magnaplanar. He was a committed Audio Research guy, as anyone would be if they had the opportunity to listen to the stuff, but he told me that when going to the maggie headquarters Wendell seemed far more interested in talking about his interest in long-barrelled gun hunting than in presenting his product and this to a significant dealer in a major city...I mention this because I was just at the maggie site to review the finish options as I am thinking of ordering some 3.7's (wood trim, etc) but they don't have a web page to show this option. The killer is that they don't have an email address...just good ole boys, all. I wonder if they have a "support our troop's" bumper sticker on the company wagon. (and a left over BUSH/GORE sticker)
wdw
wdw
Huh?
...just a little back story on Magnaplanar....that's all. Love the product but am, as a web-based guy, surprised at their web page and the lack of an email address. the story is true and, from some distance , charming but notable
Wendell says he's aware that the web site needs work. I gather that they're kind of overtaxed and understaffed right now.
curious response....are you Wendell's buddy? Their web site has always needed work...but I wonder why, when they should want to capture the imagination of a whole series of younger people who would be "blown" away by the 3.7's, they don't spend the 1000$ to update their webpage...but I know why, Wendell doesn't look at it...hence my good ole boy reference.
I's just something that I read in an open letter that was posted on some audio forums a few weeks back. Apparently Magnepan lost a key staffer, and Wendell has had to fill in. Also, they've been busy with the introduction of new models. I asked him when the Mini Maggie is coming out, and he said that it's been back burnered while they get the 3.7 out the door. He's also said that they're currently selling as many speakers as they can make. Maybe if the factory were sitting idle and inventory was piling up, his priorities would be reversed? But right now, demand is apparently exceeding supply.
ARC doesn't list an email address either! Must be a Lake Wobegon thing. :)
I stand corrected...too much Prairie Home Companion can ruin even the best of us...love that show!!!!
If you call Magnepan Wendell will actually talk to you which is rare in any company. They are service oriented and been in business a long time with lots of satisfaction. Cut them some slack on the web page. That's why they have dealers! As a matter of fact many people look at their dealer list and decide good enough for Magnepan good enough for me. Meaning if you see a Magnepan dealer then visit that dealer for other items and trust they are probably "prescreened." Magnepan doesn't hand out dealerships and jump ship like others.
curious and more curious...are you the web based apologist for magnaplanar?
It is a very simple thing to update a web-page, if you see the merits of doing so! I suspect the long-gun toting, good ole, boy doesn't see this merit. Well, he has followed his own path, and we all benefit, so I salute him.
Dude: Just buy the speakers!
...but from the web page I cannot review the panel options nor even email them to ask the question...my point exactly. Maybe you two are true believers or work for maggie but this is a simple quest. wdw
I'll bet they list their phone number!
Here is what Wendell had to say about it:
"We get a lot of criticism (and positive input) of what we should be doing (or not doing). I consider all to this input, but, from my perspective, I cannot fault Magnepan. Whatever subject you wish to discuss, I can offer a perspective that is not available to consumers. For example, 'Your website needs more attention.' Yes, I know that. But, it is not as simple as it seems to you.
"We, as a nation, and Magnepan in particular, are in an economic struggle for survival. America is slowly waking up to the fact that we must change our ways. Maybe you saw our ad in The Absolute Sound magazine, 'Frugal is Cool'. We all have modest incomes (including Mark Winey). We do more with less!!! That means we can compete with China--despite their currency manipulation."
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=90431.0
I think I did a pretty accurate job of summing up something that I read almost two months ago, as well as some other remarks that I have seen here and there. How that makes me a "true believer" or a Magnepan employee, I do not know. Whereas you just wrote, speaking of Magnepan's website, "I suspect the long-gun toting, good ole, boy doesn't see this merit." Score, one baseless and demonstrably incorrect assumption on your part, one accurately-reported fact on mine. I am not the "believer" here.
Yes I have been a Magnepan owner since 1986. Tympani IVa....3.6......20.1 and I gifted my dad a pair of 1.6. Have tried to love the box speakers (Wilson and the like but no go). This isn't Legacy mail order.
I merely passed along some things that Wendell said recently about the web page and the current situation at Magnepan. You're welcome to agree or disagree with their business decisions, but not with me, since I don't work there, don't make their business decisions, and didn't make those statements myself.
I had thought you would be interested in what a company spokesman had to say about the issue you raised, but I guess you find it more fulfilling to develop theories in the absence of facts, and to assume -- it never fails -- that in the absence of any first-hand knowledge of the situation, you know better than the folks who actually work at the company how to allocate resources and set business priorities. Suffice it to say that he is, per his own statement, aware of the shortcomings of the web site.
My point proven
Yeah...so what...now what...are you happy?
Uh, right.
What a fool.
boy..do you two get all huffy in a hurry...my comments were not disrespectful merely observational....Magnapan will run their business as they see fit but I simply assert that a well-scripted web page is essential in this age. Surely there is some talented web designer in White Plains who could, if they deemed it important enough, script up something in a week or so...the fact that they don't suggests to me that the management do not consider it as important as I do.
(651) 426-1645
The reason I got huffy was because you started making me out to have some kind of agenda when I was just trying to be friendly and pass on something that I happened to have read.
In fact, I'm not a friend of Wendell's, I don't work for Magnepan, and I share your criticisms of their website. I just happened to have read something that Wendell said in which he said that he knows the website needs work, but that they don't have the resources to fix it right now. Without access to their balance sheet, it's hard for us to argue one way or the other.
White Plains is in New York / Magnepan is in White Bear Lake which is in Minnesota.
Maybe if you called them and spoke to them you could get out of having that "conversation in your" and actually get your questions and insights answered. Magnepan is probably one of the best companies in audio and business in general. They repair and service all their products from years ago and have gone above and beyond the call of duty for many customers. So when you accuse someone of being an apologetic and make implied/inferred comments about a company I value and trust I will defend them That is because I have been a customer for 25 years and have a history and known experience.
I also have been a customer of Goldmund for twenty five years and they were the first audio company to post a website. They have an excellent website BUT their service and treatment of dealers in the US has been awful. Their products when they work are great but God forbid you need service. Shipping to Geneva and months of waiting with no communication. Multiple promises of this is the best product ever and will be always upgradeable followed by discontinuation and sorry no upgrade available (time and time again.). I bring this up because in this age Goldmund has a great website but I would rather deal with Magnepan any minute of the day than Goldmund. At the end of the day Magnepan will be there for me.
They've been very friendly, too, every time I've called. It's a pleasant reminder of the days when companies cared about customer service, rather than putting you through half an hour of useless computer menus before shunting you to someone in India.
in the march hifi news there is a test done by Paul Miller of the Maggie 3.6r and the waterfall plot shows considerable panel breakup modes and the spectrum is very messy. ITs sensitivity is as low as 79.3db,78.8db so certainly needs a ton of power.lets hope the new arrangement has improved this significantly. The review for you Maggie fans is certainly worth a read -and it certainly saved me from purchasing an old stock 3.6r and definitely waiting for the 3.7 Jonathans comments on the character of the 3.6r are reflected in Pauls review as well
AFAIK, you won't see any improvement in sensitivity in the 3.7, it seems to use the same magnets as the 3.6. These speakers just need big amps.
Trust your ears not some panel spectrum ......I can see why audio salesmen "pull theri hair out" with some of the comments I read here. I mean come on this is not rocket scientistry. Have fun with it...go visit a dealer and be upfront. Listen and rely on their experience to give you good service and options. Stores like Audio Consultants have been in business since 1967 and been a Maggie dealer forever. Their slogan is "NO sale is over til the customer is satsified" s oit's a risk free opportunity. They know their stuff and are helpful.
Fellas,
Sorry for the week-long silence on my end, but Magnepan isn't the only outfit that has Internet problems. My service has been down for six days! A Time-Warner repairman finally arrived this afternoon to swap out a defective router/modem for a new, fully functional one. Six days to replace a defective part!
Happily, you guys seem to have been getting along just fine without me.
I have no comment on the deficiencies of the Magnepan Web page, save to say that, IMO, it's a minor miracle that the company has a Web site at all (or phone service, even). I agree that the site needs updating, but, as Josh has pointed out, Maggie is a small outfit that just got done (after a ten-year hiatus) perfecting two fabulous new loudspeakers and currently has its hands full filling orders for 1.7s and 3.7s. I'm sure it will update its Internet site soon; in the nonce you can always call Wendell for info.
As for the question of amplifier power…while Maggie is claiming a slight improvement (of about a dB) in sensitivity, these are still relatively low-sensitivity speakers. That they are much better at resolving and reproducing low-level details at low volume levels doesn’t mean that they don’t need more than a little power to play at moderately loud-to-loud volume levels. Of course, how much “more than a little” depends on you, your room, and the music you listen to.
On the subject of adding a cone subwoofer to fill in the bottom octave…I’ve never been satisfied with cone subs mated to Maggies (or ’stats). But then I am particularly sensitive to the way subs (almost invariably) veil the midrange of “satellites,” taking back in midband transparency what they’re adding in low-frequency extension and power-handling. This said, it is a fact that Maggie itself has shown its speakers with subwoofers and several of my audiophile friends and colleagues routinely (and happily) use subwoofers with Maggies. In other words, this is a judgment that will depend entirely on you.
I think I should note that there is another option to cone subs. Maggie is marketing (or about to market) a “woofer” of its own—a freestanding panel called the Model DWM that is essentially a section of the excellent Maggie 20.1 woofer. Here is what Wendell has to say about it: “Our ‘secret’ solution [to the problem of mid-to-upper bass suckout] is the Maggie Woofer (Model DWM) for $795. The DWM, which is 18” high x 22”wide x1” thick, has two "voice coil" windings, so, one woofer can be used for both channels and would be sufficient for a small room. For amplifiers that have husky power supplies, the woofer is hooked up in parallel with the 3.7s. Wimpy amps would require a separate amp to drive the DWM.”
While the Model DWM won’t add the entire missing bottom octave of bass like a cone sub would (or might), it is designed to “fill in” the midbass and upper bass of 3.7s or 1.7s in rooms where this so-called “power range” is sucked out. The new woofer panel is said to work from about a little below 35Hz to 200Hz. Its crossover hinge point and slope are not adjustable (although Maggie does supply a resistor that will pad down the DWM’s output in rooms where that output is “too much”). I haven’t heard it yet, but it is possible that this planar-magnetic woofer would “blend” more invisibly with Maggies than a cone woofer would. I will try to audition the Model DWM to let you know.
Be aware, however, that the bass of the 3.7 is filling in to the point where bottom-octave grand piano sforzandos like those on the superb Nova recording of Paul Dessau’s First Piano Sonata now have nearly the same power and ultra-fine resolution that they have with the Q5s, although the Q5s are still markedly better and more extended in the bass (as they should be for $55k more).
Hey, I didn't know you could use the DWM's that way. I thought they were just for the Mini Maggies and the home theater stuff. Magnepan's web site sure does a great job of hiding this info from the buying public! :-) Thanks for filling us in -- that midbass suckout can be a bear, it certainly is in my room.
Do you think that the intrusion of cone woofers on the midrange is a consequence of harmonic distortion and cone breakup, and do you think it's something that could be eliminated with an "infinite slope" FIR crossover? Or perhaps the fact that they trigger more room modes? I'm curious, because I've never really understood why subs sound so sloppy when mated with planars, which have high Q woofers that ring like crazy, and why planar bass sounds so clean. If the world were a logical Julian Hirsch place, planar woofers would sound sloppier than cones. Except that they don't, not to me, anyway . . .
Josh,
Maggie is claiming the DWMs can be used to fiil in the power range of 3.7s and 1.7s (in rooms where power-range suckout is an issue) and to add a wee bit of extension on the bottom (maybe more than a wee bit depending on room). I've never tried them out, so I don't know for certain. But I am going to try them--not because I feel I need them with the 3.7s but because I'm curious about outboard dipolar woofers.
As for cones and planars, I DO think that what you end up hearing is the breakup modes of the cone woofers, which, no matter where you cross them over or how steeply, continue playing (however faintly) up into the midband. In addition, cone woofers come in boxes, which tend to add their own resonant signatures to the bass octaves and lower mids. Because of their dispersion pattern and phase characteristics, cone woofs in boxes also excite room modes that planars don't and can introduce (often gross) group-delay and bafflestep-response issues.
It's odd that I experienced no power-range suckout with the (smaller) 1.7s (or 1.6s), where the 3.7s, 3.6s, 3.5s, 20s (and bigger Maggies in general) have tended to be more problematical in the mid-to-upper bass, regardless of the size of room I've played them (or heard them played) in. Obviously the more apparent cancellation in the mid-to-upper bass has something to do with the sheer surface area of the bass panels (and their interaction with the room).
Jon
Jon,
As an alternative to a DWM would it not make sense to EQ the suck-out range a couple of dB? It sounds as if the problem is slight, if at all, in your room.
My best,
Al
That is odd. I do know that the little MMG's also exhibit the suckout, it's clearly visible in the in-room response curve here:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/1199/donibbles.htm
I didn't have it with my 1-D's, but that may have been because my listening room back then was laid out to cancel the first rear wave reflection in the bass -- I kept my listening chair the same distance from the rear wall as the Tympanis were from the front one, so the rear wall reflection of the front wave arrived at my ears just as the front wall reflection of the rear wave did.
For those of you who are interested, here is a picture of the Maggie Model DWM woofer described in my previous post.
Jon,
Do you know if this woofer is intended to be placed at the plane line of the main speakers, or nearer the front wall (or front corner) of the room?
Al
Al,
You can read Maggie's instructions on placement of its DWM woofer at http://www.magnepan.com/manual_DWM.
Jon
Wow, great update! Thanks, Jon,.
I guess I'll see how it goes with the 3.7s and my JL sub before making any other changes but the DWMs do sound promising indeed! I've been running my Harbeth 40.1s full range and letting the sub fill-in and cut off at 55Hz. I don't hear any difference in midrange clarity with the sub playing as compared to them not in the loop. But, as you mention, these are cone sub to cones speaker, not cone sub to ribbon speaker. I'm glad to hear the bass is continuing to fill in on the 3.7s.
Best,
Al
Jon
I have had Magnaplaner speakers for 30 years. My first pair were purchased from Basil (I/O Systems, Chicago). I have always used subwoofers with them. Basil sold me his proprietary transmission line enclosures with the KEF B139 speakers. I have never had a problem interfering with the Magnaplanar transparency running the Magnaplaners full range, and crossing the subs at 30 Hz. My point is subs can be used with the Magnaplanars without any adverse effect if the sub and crossover are well chosen.
salevy,
From Basil! No kidding! My gosh, that brings back memories. Basil's is where I first heard the 1-Us and ARC gear (and any number of other great hi-fi components)! Did you also go to U of C? Or Northwestern?
On the sub thing, it sounds as if you've got an extraordinary setup. All I'm saying is that I personally have been unable to blend a cone sub with a Maggie (or a 'stat) without trading off some of what I love about the Maggie or the 'stat. But I freely admit that many other golden-eared listeners, such as my friends and colleagues Jacob Heilbrunn and Don Saltzman, have had no problem with cone subs and planars (and that Maggie itself has successfully shown with cone subs at CES).
My best to you,
Jon
With reference to the new 3.7's bass, I have often wondered about the potential positive impact of using Mye speaker stands along with REL Britannia B3 subs (known to disappear) via the DSPeaker 8033S (anti-mode DSP subwoofer correction system). It seems to me that further exploring is required in this area!
NB: note intended to Jon
Regards,
Pierre
Jon
Thanks for your reply. I did not attend U of C or Northwestern. I graduated from Cooper Union and The Albert Einstein College of Medicine. I have been in Milwaukee since 1971. Basil was extraordinary in many ways, and showed the value of a reputable golden eared dealer. I still have some of the components purchased from him after he lost the ARC franchise, including the Paragon preamp which is now used in a secondary system, but the Dahlquist crossover (modified by Van Alstine) still resides in my main system, and I have never heard subs that surpass the subs that were built for him.
Dealer called to confirm delivery of my 3.7s this Fri (3/11). I'll post some initial comparisons between the 3.6s (which I've lived w/ since 03) and the 3.7s Sunday night.
That's good news! When did you place them on order?
Al
Looking forward to your first impressions.
I placed the order right after CES in early Jan. Just a little tidbit, my dealer said that Magnepan began producing the 3.7 in wood only for the initial production, I would think probably because there's a reserve of wood trim from the 3.6 than can be used for the 3.7. Dealer said I've already got my 3.7s and he's still waiting for his aluminum store demos.
Great! I've ordered cherry wood 3.7s so maybe mine will not be far behind.
Al
I see Magnepan now has a downloadable manual for the 3.7s up on their website. The manual is almost entirely different than the one for the 3.6. For one thing they suggest using a 1 ohm resistor for both the tweeter and midrange (at least during the break-in period however only one pair seems to be supplied. They also suggest placing the tweeter on the inside for listening by one ortwo people.
Regards,
Al
If the 3.7's are similar to my MG lll's one pair of resistors should suffice for both speakers as one covers the bass and the other the tweeter/midrange.
Thanks, that would solve the problem. According to something I read ("weekend with harry") someone hearing HP's 3.7s noticed the resistor on the tweeters.
Al
I ve tried the resistors on the 3.6 s and 1.6 s and lost dynamics...any new experience with these? It definitely tamed some "brightness" but at los of dynamics...decided to not keep them in....it probably was more a room issue in my case butt tried easiest solution first. Then I used Shakti Hallographs and was more content.
I'm getting a Lyngdorf RP-1 room correction device that will eliminate the need for resistors (I hope) and hopefully not reduce dynamics. I used to own 3.6s and did the resistors on the tweeters. I was not aware of dynamic loss then but it won't have mattered anyway because, to me, over-bright treble is much more offensive than some loss of dynamics, especially for orchestral music.
Al
I agree brightness and forwardness are untolerable...that was the issue with early cd's and digital for me
Initial impression is that the 3.7 is an incremental improvement over the 3.6 in terms of transient speed, instrumental detail, and clarity. Soundstage and imaging are unchanged. Low level detail is marginally improved. I attribute some leanness and analytic character to the need for break in time. The 3.7s are not transformative compared to my 3.6s in my system at this stage. The 3.7 is a superb speaker to be sure, but if you are a 3.6 owner I would suggest that you audition the speaker prior to making a purchase.
Will be interesting to hear your updates in 1/ 3 /6 months and one year. Thanks for letting us know. When I initially received my MG 20.1 's in 2008 I called the dealer and queried him. I was much happier as time went on and they really broke in. Hopefully that will be your experience. If not I hopey you have a dealer that will take them back and refund your money. I like "no sale is over til the customer is satisfied."
I agree, typically these speakers improve w/ use so I expect that the lean/analytic character they have now will smooth out considerably, and I agree that it takes several hundred hours of use for a full break in. However, the general sense I have about the 3.7 is that they are not likely to to bloom into a speaker that leaves the 3.6 far in its wake. I'm sure I'll have no problem living with them, they are no worse than the 3.6s, and I could have kept them another 8 years so I have no plans to exchange them. My system is certainly not a SOTA affair that the reviewers or some of the readership enjoy so that will naturally limit what I am able to achieve w/ these or any speaker.
Are you using the resistors in either the mid-range or tweeter?
Al
Yeah I've gone back and forth w/ one them, then the other, both, and none. Frankly they suck the life out of the speaker in my room, sounds like someone threw a blanket over them. They are not hot or strident due to the ribbon. For example, Rampal's flute(Bolling/Rampal Suite for Jazz Piano& Flute; Columbia Half Speed Master LP) is delicate, breathy, and reaches the higher octaves w/o piercing your ears. I agree w/ Jon's comment on the transients, the pluck of strings and the hammer quality of the piano key are more defined and faster on the 3.7 than the 3.6. However until the speaker breaks in this quality actually makes the speaker seem marginally more forward and analytic than the mellower (and long broken in) 3.6s. Sometimes that's the price of accuracy I suppose. Time will tell.
Fellas,
Here are some further thoughts on the 3.7s.
First, though the bass "issue" is not completely resolved, the speaker's bass response is improved. I would say that, now, after several weeks of play, the 3.7s are reaching (flat) into the mid-40s (which is about 10Hz lower than they were going when they first arrived). They have "useable" response (which is to say, response that is considerably lower in amplitude but clearly audible) well down into the low 30s, so that things like synth pulses and bass drum strikes will do a bit of room-shaking. What is most impressive about the speaker's bass isn't its extension but how seamlessly it integrates with midrange and treble.
While the 3.7s' bass no longer bothers me, as it originally did to a small degree, there are three potential ways around its lack of flat extension into the bottom octaves. Someone on this thread mentioned DSP, which may be an answer, although in my experience DSP or analog EQ is better used to reduce peaks in frequency response rather than it is to fill in valleys. To bring the bass to flat in my room via DSP would mean a helluva boost in the 30-50Hz range, which might put a helluva strain on my amplifiers. Another way to fill in the bottom octaves would be to use a 1.2 ohm resistor on the midrange panels, which Wendell Diller says will "warm up" the sound, perhaps enough to subjectively fill in a mid-to-upper bass suckout.The downside of this fix is that the sound may become too "warm," ruining the near-seamless and extraordinarily neutral octave-to-octave balance of the 3.7. A third option is the one that I've already mentioned: the use of Maggie's DWM woofer panels run in parallel with the 3.7s. Once again, this could screw up the balance of the 3.7s and, speaking for myself, I would much rather live with these panels as they now sound then try to eke out another 5-10Hz and screw up their naturalness in the upper bass, midrange, and treble.
Since I have not tried any of these "fixes" and am not terribly inclined to do so--since I am anything but dissatisfied with the sound I'm now getting--I can't tell you which is best. I may--repeat, may--try the DWM woofers, simply so that I can report on their effects, both pro and con.
Second, transient response with the 3.7s is very lifelike so when, for instance, a percussionist strikes a timp you hear the taut skin of the drumhead flex and then rebound with higher clarity than you usually do with other speakers (i.e., without the overhang then tends to slightly blur this sequence of sounds). Likewise, when a violinist plays pizzicato, you hear the snap of the string with the same kind of lifelike speed and clarity as you do a timp srike; more impressively, you hear the difference between the slightly fleshier, less sharply defined standard pizzicato and the so-called "Bartok pizzicato" (where the string is literally snapped against the wood of the fingerboard, making a sharper, stronger, more clearly defined "snap"). It has been my experience that better (which is to say, more lifelike) transient response clarifies the way instruments work, the mechanisms by which they make their sound, while also clarifying precisely how the instrumentalist is manipulating those sound-producing mechanisms throughout his performance. In other words, you get a clearer sense of instrument and artistry. The 3.7 is exceptionally good at these things--to the extent that, within its dynamic and frequency response limits, it almost equals the best loudspeaker I've heard in my home, the Magico Q5.
Third, as you may have gathered from what I just said, the 3.7 does have certain dynamic limits, particularly on the loud end of the dynamic spectrum. (I would not say it has a problem on the soft or pianissimo end of the dynamic spectrum, which is one of the great improvements of the 3.7, IMO, over previous Maggies.) These ultimate power/loudness limits are simply the nature of membrane loudspeakers, be they electrostats or ribbons. Such membranes are inevitably limited in excursion, and at very loud levels you will become aware of these limits (at least you will if you are comparing a 3.7 to a Magico Q5).
I don't want to overemphasize this last point because you really have to push the volume to get a sense of membrane-excursion (or fortissississimo dynamic) limits. With acoustic music, including very large-scale orchestral or operatic works, you will seldom or never notice this. With some kinds of rock 'n' roll played (appropriately) very, very, very loud, you may. However, let me add this: Unlike the earlier "true ribbon" Maggies the 3.7s don't reach their excursion limits in a selective way, which is to say that the treble doesn't begin to crap out ahead of the midrange or the bass ahead of the treble or the midrange ahead of either extreme. Everything remains in sync, from ultra-soft to very-loud, with no segment of the frequency spectrum "getting ahead" of or "lagging behind" another, as, to my ear, was obviously the case with the 3.6s and 20.1s. Clearly, this is a reflection of the much improved phase coherence and greatly reduced group delay of the 3.7s, which, IMO (and Mr. Pearson's), are a tremendous leap forward over previous single-panel Maggies.
Jon
Can't wait to see what they do in the replacement for the 20.1 's. I guess maybe that will arrive CES 2012?
Majestic,
I think a new 20.2 would be a safe prediction. Though no one at Magnepan has confirmed this (or said anything about having a new model ready for next year's CES), it stands to reason that the company would also replace its current top-line speaker after replacing its entry-level and mid-range numbers with greatly improved models.
In addition to a new and improved 20.2, what I and a lot of other Maggie lovers would love to see is an all-out Tympani IV Series muiti-panel Maggie that incorporates the advances made in the 3.6 in group-delay, grain and distortion, low-level resolution at low volume levels, and integration of the ribbon tweeter and other drivers. Even if such an item were very expensive, as it would probably have to be, it probably wouldn't cost as much as most (if not all) of its chief competitors and, as those of us who remember the three-panelTympani IV Series Maggies can attest, those big planars--though incredibly demanding of space, power, and careful placement--did some things better than any speaker around, then or now.
Jon
Amen to that. I've seen rumors that they're working on a new $40 K Tympani, but nothing certain.
Department of selfish wishes: since I currently have a small listening room, what I'd like to see is a Tympani that splits like the IVA's did but is sold in two parts. The mid/tweeter section would be 3-way and cover the range from 80 Hz on up; it could be crossed to dynamic woofers or the Maggie woofers in smaller rooms like mine, or it could be combined with the bass panels for a full scale Tympani setup. So they could in effect kill to birds with one stone: those of us who have small rooms but want their higher end technology, and those who have large ones and want something gutsier than the 20.1.
Needless to say, I expect Wendell to drop whatever he's doing now and get to work on it. :-)
I agree. I had the Tympani IVA from 1986 to 2003. I only had a Goldmund preamp(the 7PH). and a Levinson No 23 so never quite experienced all that they (Tympani) could offer but they were superb. Incorporating the dipole bass and the new improvements would be very interesting. I once heard the 20.1's in Evanston IL at Audio Consultants with the top of the line Boulder amp/preamp and phono....Transparent Opus....and an SME 20 rig. It was unbelievable. I could not believe how relaxed the presentation was. It was as though time stood still between the notes and it just drew me in. No effort to listen. Suspension of "trying to evaluate; just a naturalness.
Here's a wild card question... Has anyone used any type of digital signal processing such as Holm , Deqx or TacT with any of the Maggie's? It seems to me that since speaker placement and/or room issues could be dramatically reduced with proper quality digital signal processing. I think only AHC and REG have ever reviewed these products.
Maybe this question should be posted as a seperate issue on its own????
I used the Tact 2.2 with my 3.6s. It had a problem measuring the dipole reflection off the front wall until I moved the speakers very far from the wall (about 15 feet out in a 24 foot room. The Tact worked well to blend my two Rel subs with the Maggies. Later I used it with several other speakers including my current Harbeth M40.1s which have a way of over-stimulating room modes. Currently I'm using an Audyssey (built into a Denon receiver) in a 5.1 (music only) system with the Harbeth's in front and a pair of Grandients for the rear channels. I plan to replace the Harbeths with the 3.7s using the Lyngdorf RP-1 Room Perfectunit for them and continue using the Audyssey for the rears.
Al
Jon,
I have one worry about the new 3.7s which I've ordered and have not yet heard: My impression of the 1.7s, when hearing them at a dealer, was they were too bright. Now, they were in a room without any wall treatment and only a rug on the floor. Also, they were relatively new and not yet broken-in. A pair of 3.6s in a similar room sounded very smooth on top. The 3.6s were about nine months old. Neither speakes had the resistor installed. My hope is the 3.7s sound more like the 3.6s on top than the 1.7s. Do you have an opinion on that?
Thanks!
Al
Al,
Yes, I do have an opinion. The Maggie 1.7s may, indeed, sound a bit bright before they are broken in (they sounded a bit bright at their introduction at CES with Bryston electronics). After break-in, how bright they sound depends on: a) placement, b) room and room treatment, and c) what you are driving them with. In my room, with either ARC or Technical Brain electronics, they are NOT overly bright, although they aren't as smooth, fast, detailed, grainless, and extended in the treble as the 3.7s.
I've already said that my problem with the 3.6s (and all previous "ribbon" Maggies) was the way that ribbon tweeter stuck out, brightening and roughening up the upper midrange and top end--not just tipping the balance toward the treble but also rather spoiling the overall coherence of the speaker. The 3.7 has solved this problem, IMO.
Do note that you can pad down the output of the 3.7s' ribbon tweeter via supplied 1.2 ohm resistors if you feel you're getting too much top end in your room. (You could, of course, also do this with the 3.6s but the losses rather outweighed the gains with the 3.6s and 3.5s. I do not have that impression with the 3.7s.)
Jon
Thank you, Jon!
You have assuaged my concerns.
Best,
Al
add a pair of shakti's and you will be amazed...they have a money back guarantee.....
I have been reading comments on here for years and I finally felt compelled to sign up and try to contribute something. I, like a lot of other people, including Mr. Valin, was always a little bothered by the difference between the ribbon and the rest of my 3.6, which I have owned since they first came out. Luckily, there is much relief to be had on this issue, for little money and the difference has made me perfectly happy an content with my 3.6's.
I happened to talk to Karl at Empirical Design cable one day about purchasing some interconnects from his company. In discussing my system, he told me that he had done some experimenting for a friend who owned 3.6's, trying to upgrade the sound with good success. Based on his recommendations I made the following upgrades:
Replaced cheap fuses with gold capped Hi-Fi fuses
Replaced steel bridge where resistor can go with a small cable bridge he supplied to me
Replaced all steel connection pins that connect crossover to panel with small, gold plated sleeves he supplied
Give all this a week or two to cook, and you'll be amazed the change to will hear.
Most of that discontinuity between ribbon and quasi ribbon disappeared and the speaker became so much smoother.
I think all included, the upgrade cost me about 350$, 200$ of it for the fuses alone.
The difference is so wonderful, I still sit in amazement sometimes. So anyone who does not feel like running out and spend 5k on a new set of 3.7's, you can greatly increase your listening pleasure with a small and very reasonable upgrade that you can easily install yourself.
I do intend to upgrade to the 3.7 at some point in the future when the initial rush is over and at that point I will probably invest in a set of MyeStands as well. I have heard them make a significant impact in a friends system.
I hope this helps a few fans get more out of a wonderful speaker design, that has given me countless hours of musical pleasure over the years.
I did similar on MG 20.1....Transparent built a ref xl set of jumpers from crossover to speaker terminals
Transparent built a ref xl jumper for the metal jumper (tweeter resistor site)
I bought Furutech fuses to replace stock fuses
Really gained a sense of improvement in low level resolution and "blackness"///well worth it.
The last thing I plan to do is get the crossover boxes off the hardwood floor.
quadlover,
I think this is a separate question, and I have already expressed my "concerns" with EQ, digital or analog, in my post of 03/13 above.
Moreover, let me repeat: I am not dissatisfied with the sound I am getting from the 3.7s at this point. This is an extraordinarily realistic loudspeaker system that bears comparison with the best money can buy. In my room, the bass rolls off below about 45Hz, but the speaker is very flat, fast, and high in resolution down to this lower limit and has "useable response" into the low 30s. It is not, perhaps, the best choice for a rock 'n' roll speaker, as least for "power rock" played back at stadium levels. But if you listen to acoustic rock or to any kind of acoustic music, you will be hard-pressed to find a more lifelike transducer for anything close to this kind of money.
Jon
Magnapan is demonstrating the 3.7 with Bryston electronics. Any comments about this? Apparently HP likes this combination.
If you want to hear all that these speakers are capable of I encourage you to listen to them with state-of-the-art electronics from ARC or VTL or c-j or Technical Brain or Soulution or BAlabo. That they perform as fantastically as they do with some of the world's great amps and preamps not only speaks well for the electronics, it also speaks volumes about the speakers themselves.
Of course, I know that in the real world nobody's going to be driving the 3.7s with $70-$115k transistor amps. But there are far more affordable options, both solid-state and tube, including the 150Wpc (into 4 ohms) NAD C 272 at $799, the wonderful little 150Wpc Odyssey Khartago for $895, the 300Wpc Vincent Audio SP-331 at $1199, the 400Wpc Parasound A21 at $2000, and the 350Wpc Cambridge Audio 840W at $2699.
HP is using McIntosh 2301 monos in his review of the 3.7s. I believe Jacob Heilbrunn and Donald Saltzman are using VTL Wotans and MB450s with their 20.1s.
JV,
Thanks for replying to my post. My comment about digital sound processing may not be necessarily directed to you but to the others who have posted on this section in reference to the Maggies "sound" in the room they are either using or at the place they have heard the 3.7's or other Maggie's. I am sure with the quality of equipment you keep/use/listen to in your room that the acoustics of the room as well as the acoustical treatment make the room a quality source for reference equipment. I have 1 friend that built a custom room that is beyond the normal scope of typical acoustics so I guarantee that when any item is changed in his system (of abasolute high end quality) that any change is noticed.
That said not all of us can do that type of construction or have a room of natural quality like you must have. We all know room acoustics can be improved with the correct usage of acoustical treatments of various types, but what about the effect of digital signal processing? I would love to know what changes you would hear in your reference room (not to mention any of the other TAS reviewers) when something like the processors I mentioned were installed.
REG has reported, in TAS, how DSP via room correction devices has affected his in-room response with most all such products over the past several years. I can't think of one instance where the results were not an improvement over what was already a very flat speaker/room frequency response using his Harbeth M40s.
Al
Al,
REG, bless his heart, and I don't always hear things alike.
Jon
Jon,
I fully understand. I don't either.
REG has written that, while he likes the largeness of the presentation vs. point source speakers,Maggies he has heard in the past have a colored sound. I owned the 3.6s for a few years and didn't hear them that way at all.
My recent audition of the 3.6s and 1.7s at an audio dealer in Scottsdale was accompanied by a good friend who played 1st trombone in the LA Philharmonic for over 30 years. His comment upon hearing the 3.6s was that the instruments sounded very natural. We heard several other speakers including some from Martin Logan and even the $250K MBL, none of which, he said, sounded as natural as the Maggies. My background is also in music. After picking up a couple degrees from the Eastman School of Music, I taught instrumental music for fourteen years, then spent the past twenty-nine years (I'm an official geezer, I suppose) as a District Manager for Steinway Musical Instruments. I've heard plenty of live music upon which to judge speakers. The Maggies I've heard, especially 3.6s and 20.1, in my opinion do have a natural sound on well recorded music.
By the way, my dealer says my 3.7s have arrived and will be delivering them sometime next week. It's a nine-hour drive from Rochester, NY to where I live in VA. Now that's service!
Regards,
Al
What about Gifted Listener Audio in Centreville VA for Maggies?
I have been doing business with the Rochester dealer for many years (I lived there before moving to VA). He made me a great deal with a trade-in on my Harbeths. You're right. Gifted Listener is the nearest Maggie dealer to me but still three hours away.
Al
Several more observations after a few more extended sessions and some positioning changes:
1) Imaging is definitely more focused w/ somewhat increased sound stage depth w/ ribbon inboard. The soundstage remains panel to panel w/ the ribbon inboard. In my system the effect of ribbon inboard vs. outboard is not nearly as dramatic as HP stated in his review; however, I will continue to listen w/ the ribbon inboard.
2) Bass is certainly more taut and has more punch than the 3.6.
3) After living w/ the 3.7 so far I would say it's overall neutral in character, neither overly warm nor analytic. I am not using either resistor (ribbon/midrange), just the jumpers. The ribbon is not harsh and the initial leanness in the midbass disappeared after 10-12h of use. I do not believe that the 3.7 will require hundreds of hours for full break in.
4) It is likely that my components are not sufficiently resolving to allow the 3.7s to perform at the level described by the TAS reviewers, so overall my initial impression comparing the 3.7 to the 3.6 remains about the same and I'll leave it at that.
I agree with the post above. I've tried Maggies with the ribbons inboard and out with the speakers along the short wall and long wall of my listening room. When placed on the long wall and the ribbons inside, there was definitely more sound stage depth and focus with the seamless wall to wall sound that make these speakers so seductive. With the speakers along the short wall and the ribbons on the outside, there seemed to be a tad less focused but sound stage width was better than when placing the ribbons on the inside along the short wall. In short, my experience is along the long wall, ribbons on the inside, along the lshort wall, tweeters on the outside.
Long break in time is a must. Don't even think about any serious evaluation w/o at least 200 hours at least.
Is there a more complete front to back "image depth" of images than in the 1.7s? As you noted, the 1.7s have great front-to-back depth, but the image itself is less "deep" than other speakers. Is this ameliorated in the 3.7s?
brion,
I think that the 3.7s do have a bit more image depth than the 1.7s, though I'm not sure why.
Jon
It's interesting that you say that. I've noticed that same flat image effect you described with some Maggies. As it happens, I was just discussing the comparative imaging of some of the better dynamic speakers with someone on another forum, and he said he was sometimes bothered by the "holographic" effect of instruments that seem to occupy points in space that you can almost walk around. As am I, since impressive as it is, it doesn't sound natural to me, since I've never heard live music that had that kind of imaging. And now I'm wondering whether the ear isn't actually detecting the respective shapes of the planars and dynamics using parallax and the HRTF, and applying it to its perception of the shape of the instruments.
I was in Carnegie Hall for opening weekend, October 2003 when the Kirov orchestra was playing. I was sitting in the balcony. I found the sound highly dimensional in a way it was not when I was in Row 2 on a different date. The movement started with a drummer, playing solo, pppp, and slowly --very, very, very slowly -- increasing the dynamics. He played solo for at least 7 minutes and it was dazzling. One could hear the air "part," to allow the sound to rise, straight up, into the atmosphere. It was the most "dimensional" effect I've ever heard from an orchestra.
I would imagine that, depending on where one sits -- and the hall one sits in -- that flat image might seem the norm. It certainly seemed that way in Davies Hall, when I lived in San Francisco. In fact, one night, I bought seats in two different sections of the hall, went with a friend, who was a classically trained pianist who once did recitals, and switched seats at intermission. I asked him his observations afterwards. He said that, in Davies Hall, "the double bass seemed to disappear." I never forgot that. I thought the same. I also thought the instruments sounded flat. The highs? Forget it. It had the harmonic blossoming of lava. That is to say, none.
Yet, when I hear the San Francisco symphony orchestra on CD, it sounds as though there is some air, and an actual dimensional effect in some parts of the orchestra, usually the mids. The highs are still...dead. There is no "Lazarus effect" in Davies hall, unless it changed since 2002, when I moved away.
I think what we hear depends on where we heard it.
At the end of it all....I suspect this is one of the longest and most musically passionate group of posters on the web... a tribute to the manufacturer and to us all...the defining characteristic is the love of well played and well reproduced music shared in the company of good friends.
Thank you for this informative blog. I have been using 3.6's in a 12 x 14 room (aided by a hallway) and, of course, I have not been getting the panoramic vistas these speakers are capable of, but I have obtained the "in your room" effect and scale that are important to me. This is by using the resistors and extensive room treatment (e.g. ASC towers) and I have achieved a fairly even bass response except for a 6db bump at 40Hz. I was always hoping that Magnepan would make small- room friendly speakers with the full resolution of the true ribbon, but it does not look like they will. I was actually considering the 1.7s due to more coherence - important in a smaller room - and not having to tweak the highs. But from your comments it seems the 3.7 has the more integrated treble, plus the enhanced coherence. Any thoughs on improvements to be made in a small room by upgrading?
JV, thank you for your review of the new 3.7s. I currently own Maggie 1.6s and am considering an upgrade to the 3.7s. I have an Audio Research Ref 110 power amp with an LS26 preamp. Do you think the Ref 110 has enough power to make the 3.7s sound ideal? The Ref 110 works well with my 1.6s, but I know the 3.6s required a lot of power to sound ideal. Thanks.
JV – I am reading remarks from you and others on major coherence and microdynamics/efficiency improvements with the 3.7 (from the 3.6). I also understand that for many, this has become THE speaker in the under 10K range. Given your positive experience with the QUAD 2905 (about 12K), I wonder if you feel that the Maggie 3.7 provides the coherence and transparency of the Quad but with vastly better dynamics and punch and would be the preferred speaker. Discussion suggest this might be the case and I wonder if you might comment specifically.
I am a happy Quad 2805 owner but heard an Infinity IRS V rig yesterday and it total knocked me back – I love the Quads for micro dynamics, speed, transparency, truth of timber, etc but wow, I am now most aware of their dynamic limitations. Humm….
JV,
I'm impressed with the degree of enthusiasm the 3.7s have generated, but I wondered how you think they compare to the MG 20.1's - still Magnepan's flagship model - which used to be a big favorite amongst the folks at TAS?
thanks,
scott.