Magneplanar 1.7: First Listen
The Magneplanar 1.7—the first new loudspeaker from Magnepan in better than a decade—was the most eagerly anticipated introduction at this year’s CES. Happily, its debut turned out to be a smashing success. Even more happily, its “debut” in my listening room, which took place last Wednesday when Maggie’s Wendell Diller installed them in my system, has been a smashing success. I have now listened to the 1.7s for five days (almost continually, which should tell you something about their irresistible appeal) and I can say with confidence that they are worthy successors to the 1.6s, the speakers I have long thought (and often called) the best buys in high-end audio.
Truth be told, I think the 1.6s also are (or were, prior to the arrival of the 1.7s) the best speakers in the Maggie line, at least in one (to me) critical respect. Much as I admire the “true ribbon” Maggie 3.6s and 20.1s (both of which I’ve reviewed in various iterations), I have always had a problem with, well, their true ribbons. Precisely because of their superiority in transient response and resolution, Maggie’s true ribbons have always stuck out a bit compared to the quasi-ribbon or planar-magnetic panels they are mated with. (Indeed, I have generally had a problem with speakers that attempt to mate a ribbon or electrostat to any other driver, save for another ribbon or electrostat.) Yes, Maggie’s true ribbon is a marvel of speed, resolution, low distortion, and extension, and, yes, it was and remains superior to the “quasi-ribbon” that Maggies uses in the 1.6 and now the 1.7. But when you can persistently hear a driver as a separate element in the presentation, it makes the speaker as present as the music it is reproducing, rather spoiling the illusion that you are listening to one seamless transducer, which, as I’ve noted in the past, is as close as hi-fi gets to creating the illusion that you are listening to NO transducer.
(For those of you who don’t understand the difference between “true” and “quasi” ribbons, in a nutshell the incredibly lightweight foil in a true ribbon IS the driver—it simultaneously conducts the signal and turns it into sound waves. In a “quasi” ribbon, the foil is not the driver—or not exactly. In a quasi-ribbon, that strip of aluminum foil is itself attached to an extremely lightweight strip of Mylar; the foil, which is suspended between permanent bar magnets, acts as the signal conductor (a planar voice coil, if you will), transmitting the signal to the entire surface of the Mylar, which, in turn, vibrates to produce sound. As a point of comparison, in a traditional planar-magnetic driver the Mylar driver is not driven uniformly over its entire surface by a foil of aluminum as it is in a quasi-ribbon; instead, it is driven by a lattice-work of thick signal-conducting wires that are attached to the Mylar itself. The difference in the uniformity of drive and in the relative mass of the driver should be obvious.)
Up until the 1.7, all Maggie speakers used a mix of ribbon (typically for high frequencies), quasi-ribbon (typically for high frequencies and upper mids), and planar-magnetic drivers (typically for the lower mids and the bass), which, as I just noted, made for variations in uniformity of drive, uniformity of dispersion, uniformity of mass, and uniformity of power-handling that could sometimes be heard as slight discontinuities in the overall presentation. This was particularly true of the transition between ribbon tweeter and quasi-ribbon or planar-magnetic panels, but also of the transition between quasi-ribbon and planar-magnetic panels.
What makes the 1.7 such a landmark—and a departure—is that every driver in it, from its super-tweeter panel to its tweeter/upper mid panel to its lower-mid/bass panel—is a quasi-ribbon, making this the first Magneplanar to use ribbon technology in ALL of its drivers. The speaker’s crossover has also been carefully redone, as has its “enclosure” (the 1.7s use a stiffer aluminum-and-MDF frame rather than Maggie’s traditional all-wooden one). The result is a speaker of superior “uniformity”—a speaker’s whose power-handling, dispersion, resolution, and overall presentation are more “of a piece” than ANY previous Maggie design. (This does not mean, BTW, that the 1.7 will outdo its bigger brothers in some critical areas. Maggie’s true ribbon tweeter, taken on its own, remains a superior transducer, and the considerably larger planar-magnetic mid/bass panels in the 3.6 and 20.1 simply produce “bigger,” fuller, deeper bass than the smaller quasi-ribbon bass panel in the 1.7)
Frequency response of the 1.7 is said to range from 40Hz–24kHz (which the eagle-eyed among you will note is not all that different than the frequency response of the 1.6). Its sensitivity is rated at 86dB/500Hz /2.83v. Its impedance is 4 ohms. All of which means that, like the 1.6 and every other Maggie, the 1.7 will take some power to drive, although how much power depends on the size of your room, the kind of music you listen to, and the levels you are comfortable listening at. At the moment I am driving the 1.7s with the most transparent amps I’ve heard—the $115k Soulution 700s—coupled (via Tara Labs Zero and MIT Oracle MA-X) with the best preamps I’ve heard—the Audio Research Reference 5 and Audio Research Reference 2 Phono—and fed by the best sources I’ve heard—the Walker Proscenium Black Diamond Mk II record player with Da Vinci Reference Grandezza Mk II cartridge and the “Level 5” United Home Audio TASCAM 15ips, two-track tape deck playing back fabulous second-generation mastertapes from The Tape Project. At a later point I will switch over to the ARC 610Ts, the Technical Brain amp and preamp, the BAlabo amp and preamp, and to much, much, much more affordable electronics from Odyssey, but for the nonce let it be clear that I could happily live with the 1.7s in a system that is as ultra-high-end as the one I’m using. THAT’s how good they are.
Appearances to the contrary, I’m not going to write an entire review at this point. I will save the issues of dipolar line-source speakers versus monopole point-source speakers, frequency response, distortion, etc. for another day. But I do want to make some initial observations about the 1.7s’ sound:
1) First, yes, they are audibly and substantially more coherent than previous Maggies—more of a piece top-to-bottom than the 1.6s, the 3.6s, and the 20.1s.
2) Yes, the addition of the super-tweeter has greatly improved the treble over that of the 1.6s—more air, more detail, more transient speed, more bloom. But, be aware, that played very very very very loudly (and I’m talking well above100dB+ SPL peaks) that tweeter can turn bright in the upper mids, although I’m not at all sure, at this point, whether this is a panel-excursion issue or an amplifier-running-out-of-steam issue. The quasi-ribbon bass is improved, too, in resolution and dynamics, although I wouldn't say it goes much deeper than that of the 1.6s (at least, not in my room)--quite solid and flat down into the 40s. I believe the bass panel can also be overdriven at very very very loud levels.
3) Yes, as I just implied, the 1.7s will play loudly more eagerly than the 1.6s, although they still may not be the ideal stadium rock speaker. More importantly from my point of view, they will also play more convincingly at low-to-moderate levels than the 1.6s (or any Maggie I’ve heard). Like their newfound coherence, this is a major departure from previous Maggies. While they sound progressively more room-fillingly realistic as you turn the volume up to a lifelike level, they do not sound anemic dynamically at lower volumes nor do they seem short of bass or treble.
4) They image better than any Maggie I’ve ever heard. I assume this may be a side-benefit of the uniformity of drive, dispersion, and power-handling of the all-quasi-ribbon complement of drivers (and it may have something to do with the addition of the separate super tweeter, too), but the “mouth-as-big-as-a-bass drum” effect of many previous Maggies is…gone. While they still have lifelike size of image (at lifelike volumes), the focus of the images is VASTLY improved—almost to the level of something like the point-source Magico M5, which is a paragon of imaging.
5) Their soundstaging is simply the best I’ve heard from a dipole. With the right source (like The Tape Project’s dub of Reference Recordings’ Arnold Overtures—horrible music, great sound—or the superb Philips LP of Richard Rodney Bennett’s terrific Piano Concerto), your jaw will drop when you hear the way these relatively demure panels fill the back third of your room with precisely layered, minutely detailed, incredibly deep, wall-bustingly wide sound.
6) They are considerably higher in resolution at low, moderate, and high SPLs than the 1.6s, from top to bottom. Though I wouldn’t say they are as transparent to sources or as finely detailed as, oh, the MartinLogan CLXes (nothing is) or M5s, they are nonetheless very finely detailed and transparent. Save in the bottom octave or octave-and-a-half, you aren’t going to miss much if anything with these little numbers.
7) They are intoxicatingly realistic. There is something about Maggies that simply sounds like the real thing, particularly in the midrange, particularly on voices. Maggies aren’t the only speakers that have this supreme gift (Magicos have it, too—in spades--and so do CLXes). But some combination of neutrality, coherence, transient speed, image size, dispersion, dimensionality and bloom, and resolution of texture has always made Maggies sound more real than a large percentage of their competition. Here—with the right recordings, at the right levels—that realism (at least in the midband) is very nearly as close as I’ve come to the absolute sound in my listening room, and simply unmatched for a speaker at this price point (or, really, anything even remotely close to its price point).
Comments
This is excellent news, Jonathan. Do you still find the bass choirs to be clear enough to clearly separate groups of bass intruments (i.e., cellos from basses, etc). I suppose I'm asking if they are tonally rich enough to make the instruments of the orchestra immediately apparent, one from the other?
I have been waiting for over 7 years to see what Magnepan would do to upgrade the 1.6s. This is exactly what I wanted (save, more bass extension) I may now have to keep the Gallo Ref 3.1 in the den for TV/Movies!
Jonathan,
How do the Maggie 1.7 sound compared to what you heard from the Gallo 3.5s?
Also, please take Audio Research's new DSi200 integrated for a spin (along with the Odyssey) on your affordable run. Thanks. I can't wait for the full review.
Hotmix,
I'm afraid I can't compare the 1.7s to the Gallos, since I've never heard the Gallos in my home. I believe Neil Gader is reviewing the ARC integrated and, if I can, I will borrow it from him to make the experiment that you suggest. As everyone and their brothers know, ARC has always made a superb match with Magnepan.
Jon
Brion,
I'm going to reserve detailed judgment on the bass (and everything else) until I've listened to the speakers longer, listened with other amps and preamps, and fine-tuned room setup. It is clear to me already that moving the speakers closer to the rear walls does enrichen bass-range/lower-midrange timbre, adding fullness (as it does with a lot of speakers). However, it also tends to darken the soundfield a bit, and I prefer a more color-neutral balance (which the Maggies are very capable of supplying). While I wouldn't call the 1.7s bottom-octave powerhouses, where they now stand they will definitely and powerfully shake floors and walls on big bass drum strokes (like the ones from the Tape Project tape of Reference Recordings' superb recording of Malcolm Arnold's terrible Overtures, and they can certainly distinguish among cellos and basses and reproduce low-pitched winds and brasses with surprisingly lifelike body and impact. They're never going to be Magico M5s in the bass (or anywhere else), and they're never going to be as transparent to sources, as finely detailed, or as ravishingly rich in color (on richly colored discs, of course) as CLXes. They have that Magnepan balance--an almost color-neutral neutrality save for a slight hint of white mixed into a window-pane-like soda-lime grey, and they have considerably less of that Magnepan "opacity"--that sense that you're listening through a very fine-grained scrim, like a white plastic screen over that window pane--then any other Maggie I've ever heard.
Once again, in the midband, on voices, most of the range of piano, violin, guitar, sax, trumpet, trombone, clarinet, flute, etc., played back at lifelike volumes they are very friggin' realistic.
Jon
My 1.7s will be closer to the center-side of the room, with less wall reinforcement. How did they sound further away from the wall Jon?
Also, my reason for asking you to mate the Maggies with the ARC DSi200 is that back about 8 years ago, I heard the 1.6s with the ARC VT200. Played medium-low in the store, the sound of the Acoustic Sounds sampler was FANTASTIC!!! The main test track of that CD for me was Sonny Rollins' "Way Out West". I'm not a fan of "straight" Jazz, but I have some CDs for test purposes (from Mapleshade, RR, etc.), and I kinda took a liking to this song. The way the Maggie/ARC combo put it out there made me a fan of both, as I'd never heard these two companies' products before. My main test for any amp is the drums on this Sonny Rollins song. the VT200 gave me crazy ambience, life-like presentation, and the snap of the snare, but also the snare's rattle came through clearly on the 1.6s. That same evening, the store owner had the Maggie 1.6s hooked up to the Arogon 8008 solid state amp (at a customer's request). This is when I became a fan of tubes: the Arogon, while sounding good, didn't present the snare of the drum kit with the rattle intact nearly as well as the ARC did. Although the VT200 is more expensive, I was hoping the "house sound" would get me more of what the Aragon didn't, while still giving a lower cost, reasonable amount of power to drive the 1.7s (my tube amps right now are a 60-watt, heavily modifies JaLida, and a Mapleshade-modded Scott from the 60's).
Hope to read the review soon!
Hotmix,
As is the case with most speakers (omnis being an exception), the farther away from room boundaries you get, the more neutral the 1.7s will sound, all other things being equal.
Now, here is what I mean by that qualification. If, in pulling speakers farther away from sidewalls, you are also pushing them closer together (i.e., drastically decreasing the distance between them), you're going to affect : a), image size (it will get smaller); b) image focus (it will get tighter); c) soundstage width (it may shrink); d) midbass and lower midrange timbres (they will get fuller and richer and often better defined, much in the same way that moving speakers closer to rear walls affects them); and e) overall tonal balance (it will tend to get darker). However, if your room is large enough, then moving speakers away from sidewalls while simultaneously maintaining an optimum distance between them (generally speaking they should be as far from each other, speaker-center to speaker-center, as they are from the listening position) is generally a very positive thing to do.
Jon
Hi Jon - I asked you this in an earlier email (and forgive me if I missed your answer) but do these have provisions for bi-amping? thanks, Michael
Michael,
I'm sorry, buddy. The answer to your question is no--the 1.7s do not have provisions for bi-wiring or bi-amping. I meant to post this on the other thread and forgot.
Jon
It may be worth adding though that if these are anything like previous small Maggies, bi-amping and bi-wiring can be accomplished in a matter of minutes by unscrewing the rear panels and making a very minor mod. If it's done right (no new holes), it's easily reversible.
Something you wrote here reminded me of something else you blogged about on first listen: the Magnepans sounding "a little dark."
Could that "darkness" have been due to their distance to the back wall or do you still find them, as you did other speakers at CES, dark-ish?
Brion,
No, I don't think the 1.7s are inherently darkish. I think they WERE set up closer to the backwalls at CES than I set them up in my room (Maggie probably did this as a crowd-pleasing ploy to make the 1.7s' bass more prominent than it would be in a more neutral setup) and, of course, Magnepan was using amplifiers that have tremendous bass-range weight, power, and drive (for the same reason, i think).
Jon
JV:
Did you see the outrageous post at Audio Asylum concerning your listening room? From an asswipe who has never been near your house. But note Grant from Shunyata comes to your aid.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=critics&m=48541
Alloway,
Oh, I've gotten used to this sort of nonsense. It was very decent of Grant to come to my defense, but then Grant's actually been in my listening room and heard how gear sounds there. As for this AA joker...to paraphrase the immortal words of Ivor T., if you haven't been in a listening room and heard how gear sounds there, then you DON'T HAVE a friggin' opinion. Period.
Jon
It is a case of an idiot audiophile having way too much time on their hands, being victims of extreme jealousy.
Screw him
Uh...well put.
Jonathan,
Very nice read about the 1.7's. How well do you think a pair of JL fathom 110 subs would blend in?
mgard,
This is an interesting question--one that I'm sure that more than a few potential 1.7 owners (and Maggie owners, in general) may find themselves asking. I have no experience with the JL subs, but Robert thinks extremely highly of them and I believe that my friend and colleague Jacob Heilbrunn actually uses the big JL subs with his Maggie 20.1s.
All I can say is that, in the past, I could not find a subwoofer that I thought mated completely seamlessly and invisibly with Maggies or with CLXes. I always felt I was trading off more in midband speed and transparency than I was gaining in bottom-octave extension and clout. BUT...that was more than a decade-and-a-half ago and subs have come a long, long way since then. So I guess my answer to your question is: "I don't know from personal experience how Maggies will fare with JL subs, but other very experienced reviewers on our staff live with this very combination and are clearly happy with the results."
Jon
Jon,
Thanks for your review. Very interesting. Looking forward to auditioning the 1.7's when they arrive at our local dealer.
On the subject of subs, I own a pair of Maggie 1.5's -- bought them back in the mid-90's. I still love them. A couple of years ago, I bought a B&W sub (can't remember the exact model) with the intention of hooking it up to a basic 2 +1 home theater rig. Just for kicks, I took it down to my listening room, and hooked it up with my Maggies. I set the low-pass filter to 30 Hz. Surprisingly, it sounded quite good. I know it's not an ultra high-end sub, but it does dig out the very low end of the spectrum that the Maggies just can't quite reach, and complements them well. This is of course contrary to Magnepan's recommendation in the manual not to use a sub, but it turns out I liked the combination so much that I just kept the B&W with my audio system. I guess the moral of the story is, imagine what a higher quality sub could do.
Of course, once I hear the 1.7's, I could be in imminent danger of upgrading the Maggies.
Thanks again for posting your review and comments.
-Dan (Philly area)
It was kind of Jonathan to mention me. I am using two JL Gothams. I think they mate exceedingly well with the 20.1, to provide, among other things, a more expansive and three dimensional soundstage. I've also heard them supplement a pair of Wilson Alexandria X-2 loudspeakers, which is what first convinced me that they might do the trick with the Magnepans. My sense is that the JL does not muck up the mids and highs, in contrast to every other subwoofer that I've tried previously.
But despite all that, I don't know whether or not Jonathan would prefer--or even find acceptable--the Gothams coupled with the 20.1. It would certainly be interesting to hear his reaction to the combination!
Jacob,
One of these days, buddy, I'll come visit and get to hear for myself.
I have to admit that I had my mind changed a bit about subs by the MBL 101 X-Treme system, although the Radialstrahlers are so sui generis that I'm not sure how far this conversion extends.
Jon
Johanthan and Jacob, thank you for your thoughts. I was thinking the JL Fathom 110s might be faster than the 112 or 113 models. Maybe that thinking is not correct. Anyway if one could seamless add the two together, it would be one killer speaker system at a very resonable cost. One other question, what is the smallest room size one would dare put the Maggie 1.7s in?
mgard,
The 1.7s are a scant 19" in width, a little under five-and-a-half feet tall, and literally thin as a board. You'd have to have a VERY small room not to be able to house them.
Jon
As usual, another great open discussion and first impression review. Even though I don't have the maggies, I like many others, are always interested in different designs and upgrades from great companies like Magnepan.
On the subject of subs, I mated two JL F113's with the Reference 3A Grand Veena's and absolutely loved the integration and depth they added, without sounding like they were added. Just recently upgraded again to the Revel Salon 2 without the subs and am trying to decide if I will gain anything with the JL's back in since the Revel's are so dynamic and powerful in the lowest octaves. Keep up the great work.
JV, do you happen to know what the intention is for the 3.6 and 20.1 now that the 1.7 is all "ribbon."
T Bop,
I presume that the 3.6 and the 20.1 are also slated for "updating," though no one at Magnepan has told me this for a fact.
Jon
I spoke with Wendell at Magnepan recently. I asked him if there were plans to update the 3.6 to all quasi-ribbon. He said no, they are far too busy with the introduction of six new products at this juncture. Magnepan has only 30 employees, after all.
Jonathan,
Great review of the 1.7Qr, I am sure they will be a huge success. They sound as though its a smaller version of the seldom seen MG2.7Qr?
The scuttlebutt that I've heard from dealer sources is that Magnepan is actually working on a true reference speaker--a $40,000 Tympani-type speaker. Let's hope it's true.
JH,
I hope this is true, too.
Jon
I'm convinced that it would be a stupendous speaker--if nothing else, it would be a wonderful to hear a properly sized bass panel in its own separate frame--but whether Magnepan will brave the turbulent economic and audio seas to create it...? Though I keep hearing that they are busily at work... Fingers crossed!
Jacob H.
Jacob,
I've heard the same rumors. The thing that a separate bass panel buys you (or at least bought you in the past) wasn't so much frequency extension but incredible articulation and resolution in the mid and upper bass. The "best" bass I've ever heard was through the Maggie I-Us, which made contrabass and cello choirs sound like a veritable forest of bows, strings, and resonant wooden bodies. Nothing else has ever eclipsed that presentation in realism.
Jon
Hello Jonathon,
Terrific news in the 1.7 'preview'...any chance that you could try tilting the speakers, from the back towards, you?
Ideally a couple of spikes, cones, timber - whatever, 3-4 cm should do it. I have generally found that this improves the image focus and sound staging on all the 'taller' Maggies.
Also, I have just sold a pair of 2.7QR's, which were basically a taller 3 way predecessor to the 1.6, I must say that as good as the 1.6's are, I preferred the 3 way 2.7's.
So I am thinking that, in your experience so far, you are describing a Maggie to rival both, what was the more expensive 2.7, and the venerable 1.6.That has to be good news at this price point!
By the way, the 2.7 was not bi-wire able either.
Bill,
I'll try your forward-tilt experiment, although I'm certainly not unhappy with the 1.7's image focus and soundstaging when they are more or less perpendicular.
I have to say, on extended listening, that my admiration for the 1.7 just keeps going up (and it was pretty damn high to begin with). This is simply a great loudspeaker, an instant classic offering almost unbelievable sound quality at its price point. No, it doesn't plumb the depths the way large dynamic speakers do, but its impact in the mid-to-upper bass and the lower midrange on things like the huge brass anthems in Janacek's Sinfonietta (did any composer ever write better for brass choirs?) will almost literally floor you.
Jon
Jon,
Good, thanks for making the time...do let us know how you go.
Yes to Maggies for 'huge brass anthems', and acapella too...I recommend to you our, all Australian: 'The Spooky Men's Chorale' Tooled Up album, especially track #4 'TOOLED UP'.
Bill.
It would be interesting to see Magnepan build woofer panels and make them available separately, as opposed to a Tympani-type system.
Mark
FWIW, it looks like the Maggie woofer is showing up at stores. As I understand it, essentially half of a 20.1 bass panel. Not the same as the big Tympani woofers, though, more a companion to the wall-mounted stuff and forthcoming Mini Maggies. I don't think I've ever heard better bass than from my old Tympani 1-D's, listening in the near field because they were so huge and my living room was so undersized (for Tympanis, not for normally-dimensioned speakers, LOL). Tremendous if not quite subwoofer slam (they'd bottom on the cannon shots in the Telarc 1812, LOL) combined with planar speed and dipole room coupling. Push-pull, quasi-ribbon Tympani bass panels would I suspect be nothing less than amazing.
Your opinion on the 1.7 is very interesting. I own a set of 1.6's. There is a statement of yours that I would request if posible some additional information on. You said "whether it is a panel excursion issue or an amplifier running out of steam issue." How would one determine the difference? My 1.6's are amplified with a set of Exposure Monoblocks and at times have wondered on whether when at a high level the sound looses cohesiveness, for a lack of a better way to describe this (distortion?) is this due to the amps or the speakers?. Is there any test(s) that can be made to determine the party that is responsible? What do you look for, listen for? Just curious, thank you.
Francisco,
I'm not familiar with the Exposure monoblocks, but I've been using Soulution and Technical Brain amps and, after much listening, I've concluded that the speakers can be overdriven--i.e., that the panels reach their limits of excursion--at very, very, very loud levels.
But you REALLY have to play them loud to hear them begin to compress dynamic peaks. As Maggies go, these are among the most freewheeling I've heard. They definitely want to go.
Jon
Jon:
I just happened to click on a link that took me back to your original blog on the Magico Minis (circa 2006) ,wherein you stated that the Kharma 3.2s, as good as they were, did not "hit" hard transients to the degree the Minis did, and I thought: good point.
How are the Magnepans in this respect? It's rather rare, now that I am mentally scanning reviews of speakers (or any other components) for the writers to comment on this aspect of musical reproduction, which, lets face it, is as relevant, especially in rock, as any other factor (excluding say, upper midrange purity and dynamics, which I find crucial to a sense of realism in sound,and the whole midbass to lower-midrange frequencies (and their accompanying dynamics).
Were Maggies of the past ever deficient in this respect?
brion,
Though very fast, planar-magentic speakers don't have quite the transient speed of featherweight electrostats; nor do they have all of the weight and density of tone color or dynamic impact of cones. They fall somewhere in between these two other types of speakers, which is a nice place to fall for the music I listen to most often. But then I don't listen to a lot of hard rock at very loud levels. If you do--and I think you do--then you might prefer a cone speaker to any planar or a 'stat. OTOH, there is no harm in trying a pair of 1.7s out at your local Maggie dealership and finding out for yourself. As I said in my reply to Francisco, these things really want to "go," and they will play VERY loud with lifelike impact in the mid-to-upper bass and midrange before they run out of excursion and start to get shrill in the treble and compressed in the bass.
Jon
Thanks, Jon.
I don't actually listen that much to rock, and when I do, it's more likely Beatles or classic rock, not Metallica. And NEVER at loud levels. Around 92 might be the highest, occasionally a little louder, and that's only on ffff passages.
I've heard some planars and electrostatics, and they sounded great, but more like Kate Moss than Beyonce in their "weight," which seems to be what you're saying. I was wondering more if the pluck of a guitar is going to make a nylon and steel string sound alike, or if it will differentiate.
I would imagine a front end with solidity will present the tone colors well enough, although perhaps not as good as cones. Lifelike weight is nice, but coherence between drivers, transparency, high (and especially low-level) resolution, and dynamic inflection (along with great image focus/specificity and a great sense of depth layering) are what I'm looking for in any speaker I buy now. Sounds like the 1.7s have that, from what you've written. I can certainly live with that. Besides, I've got decent box speakers already.
In any case, there's definitely no harm in trying out the 1.7s when they arrive at my dealers.
Thanks for the clarification.
Brion,
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
The 1.7s will certainly allow you to easily distinguish between a plucked nylon and a plucked steel string. (So, BTW, will the MartinLogan CLXes; in fact, the CLXes will do this even better than the 1.7s, albeit for eleven times more dough.) What neither 'stats nor planars will do quite as well as cones is recreate the density of tone color of those plucked notes and the body of the instrument that sounds them. There are some things to be said for the greater linearity of cones--and, of course, for damping their rear waves via a well-designed enclosure. Moreover, cones (or at least very good cones) have gotten to be as low in distortion as many 'stats.
This said, the best cones, or the best I've yet heard (with the proviso that I haven't yet heard the Magico Q5s in my home) still cannot quite equal the transient speed and low-level resolution of featherweight membranes or the lifelike way that membrane drivers, 'stats in particular, reproduce dynamics at the soft end (mp-to-pppp) of the dynamic spectrum. Nor do they match the single-driver seamlessness of membrane-driven speakers.
I think you really should audition the 1.7s. I can honestly say they would be the speaker I would buy below $10k.
Jon
I> can honestly say they would be the speaker I would buy below $10k.<
Wow! That's quite a statement. This would include Maggie's own 3.6? Are you saying that the 1.7, taken as a whole, is a better package than the 3.6?
I'm saying that if I were buying below $10k, I would buy the 1.7s.
This isn't to say that you should or would or that there aren't plenty of other very worthy speakers in this very popular and well-populated price range.
JV
Wow! That is some statement. Although I thougt the Martin Logans and Quads around 10k sounded far far better than the 1.6. May be this new model 1.7 goes much higher up than old 1.6. Or maybe it's just taste.
Sam,
You think the Quad 2805 goes "higher"? That's interesting.
Let me repeat: If I were buying a speaker below $10k, I would buy the 1.7s. That does not mean that that there aren't many, many other worthy competitors in this vast price range. My choice really IS a matter of taste (and pocketbook and value-for-dollar).
JV
Jon:
Thanks and it's completely understandable that my phrasing might have led you to believe I meant HEAVY ROCK, and not the older rock of the 60s and 70s, with which I have the most experience.
It's interesting that dipole types can't seem to manage the richness of cones. What accounts for that? This would make a terrific article in TAS, so readers can determine what type of speaker will satisfy them. Oh, I know, there have been articles on how to pick out speakers by space requirements, but nothing that says, IF you want density of tone, transient speed, extreme low-level detail, great ambience retrieval, buy "xxx" type speakers. For less density, but more transparency, higher resolution (except in the highs, where speaker xyz does not resolve overtones on triangles), buy this TYPE of speaker. I could see this being enormously invaluable to readers and it would certainly get them off the magazine's back. Granted, it would be time-consuming, but it would surpass, in quality of depth, what I"ve seen TAS put out in the past.
Myself, I like density of tone: I don't want to lose the burnished richness of brass instruments, but on the other hand, I fnd transient delivery and rhythm/timing to walk hand-in-glove on say, spanish guitar, and to hear the guitar played with its humanness and rhythms intact is what delivers the performance of the artist. I would hope that (with the 1.7) I can still hear the sounding box of the guitar instead of 6 disembodied strings!! I would imagine, if using a top, top, top quality front end, with body, that it would not ALL be deracinted by the 1.7, would it?
Judy Davidson, who used to write for TAS, was the model of pointing out the rhythmic structures of pieces and how any given component passed those tests (what happened to her. She was a fantastic write: exemplary in conveying what one could expect to hear wth a component. I do not see her like in this age of TAS.
In any case, you've answered my questions. So, it sound like the 1.7s have great transient response, reasonably good tone colors, superb low-level detail, purity, excellent soundstaging, depth layering, imaging and fantastic focus (an improvement you noted), super highs and killer transparency fom mid-bass to lower midrange. Oh, and an overall coherence with very high resolution. Did I miss anything?
OH!!! One last thing: although the tone colors will not match cones, do they sound washed out or simply not as dense, as, say someone 50% materialized in the teleporter on the starship Enterprise in contrast to someone 75% or even 100% materialized in the teleporter?
And I fully intend to try them, no question about that. As you know, I"m all for componenets that are intelligently and realistically priced. Based on what seems to me ridiculous pricing for a "New Golden Age" of components, which should read "A New Age of Golden Age Components for the Gold-Endowed King Midas' of The World," (sounds a little catty doesn't it? I've been channeling Rona Barrett lately) high end audio is excalating into a world of the have and have-nots vastly faster than society at large.. And it shows no signs ofslowing down, so it pleases me no end to have Mr. Diller introduce a speaker that, were it made by someone else, would have cost, say, $12,000 instead of $2,000. I mean, I'm plased there are 5k speakers with ribbon tweeters than can go down to 35 Hz, and if you can afford it, spend, spend, spend (We really DO need a recovery, so I guess it's up to the rich and the audio designers to do their part in creating more $40k plus speakers in the last 10 years, than there were in the 40 years preceding that. Ironic though, that given we're in the Second Great Depression, this alternats dimension called High End audio reminds us that there's really no shortage of money at all. Just part of King Midas' complex: hoar it all! (Did I spell that right? My translucent, polycarbonate glasses just fell off.)
Heck, I can't WAIT to buy a 2k pair of speakers just to do my part in the recovery! Wendell, thank you! I'm personally going to help you become one of the New King Midas'. Just don't forget your roots, y'hear????
(and now, when I got to post, it tells me I've activate the "spam filter"? Can I expect to hear from Homeland Security shortly?
brion,
I didn't say the 1.7 had "superb highs." I said its treble was greatly improved over that of the 1.6. And I'm reserving judgment on the bass. What I am saying is that in the midband it sounds very, very realistic.
Jon
I stand corrected, Jon. I took the "absolutely lovely treble" comment from your CES blog to mean the highs were great. I'll assume it to be just "lovely" until the review posts.
By high up I meant in quality/improvement over the last model 1.6 vs 1.7. I thought quads sounded far better/realistic than the 1.6. I didn't think they performed at similar levels.
Sam,
Sorry, I thought you were speaking about treble response.
I'm not as familiar with the Quad 2805 as I am with the Quad 2905 (which I reviewed in TAS), but the 2905 IS definitely a better speaker than the Maggie 1.6 and I'm willing to concede that the 2805 is, too. I love Quads and the 2905 would certainly be on my short list of speakers I would buy between $10K and $20K (so would the Maggie 20.1s and Sound Lab M-1s), although if I could squeeze out a few more grand I'd personally opt for the Logan CLXes.
JV
Thanks and it's completely understandable that my phrasing might have led you to believe I meant HEAVY ROCK, and not the older rock of the 60s and 70s, with which I have the most experience.</p>
<p>It's interesting that dipole types can't seem to manage the richness of cones. What accounts for that? This would make a terrific article in TAS, so readers can determine what type of speaker will satisfy them. Oh, I know, there have been articles on how to pick out speakers by space requirements, but nothing that says, IF you want density of tone, transient speed, extreme low-level detail, great ambience retrieval, buy "xxx" type speakers. For less density, but more transparency, higher resolution (except in the highs, where speaker xyz does not resolve overtones on triangles), buy this TYPE of speaker. I could see this being enormously invaluable to readers and it would certainly get them off the magazine's back. Granted, it would be time-consuming, but it would surpass, in quality of depth, what I"ve seen TAS put out in the past.</p>
<p>Myself, I like density of tone: I don't want to lose the burnished richness of brass instruments, but on the other hand, I fnd transient delivery and rhythm/timing to walk hand-in-glove on say, spanish guitar, and to hear the guitar played with its humanness and rhythms intact is what delivers the performance of the artist. I would hope that (with the 1.7) I can still hear the sounding box of the guitar instead of 6 disembodied strings!! I would imagine, if using a top, top, top quality front end, with body, that it would not ALL be deracinted by the 1.7, would it?
Judy Davidson, who used to write for TAS, was the model of pointing out the rhythmic structures of pieces and how any given component passed those tests (what happened to her. She was a fantastic write: exemplary in conveying what one could expect to hear wth a component. I do not see her like in this age of TAS.
And I'm pleased for those of us who can, but choose not to follow the (audio)trends that caused the French Revolution to explode: let the poor eat cake. If the 1.7s have the degree of realism in my system they do in your's then their MINE! And I shall let the rich eat bread and not cake.
I don't know why you got marked as spam, but I just fixed it.
This has been happening to me as well. Would you be so kind as to fix it for my account, too.
TIA
what's with the spam filter flagging some pretty innocuous comments? Second time this has happened. Would someone kindly remove my name from the spam filter list, please?
I asked about the tonal density of the 1.7s and asked if it was akin to materializing after being teleported in the Starship Enterprise teleporter and looking "wan," as though only 50% materialized (somewhat washed out), 75% materialized (fairly good density (and color)) or 100% materialized (full tone color, density, etc.) And compared to the Quad 2905s, how would the 1.7s seem less dense? I mean, I don't want to lose the burnished richness of brass instruments, but on the other hand, I fnd transient delivery and rhythm/timing to walk hand-in-glove on say, spanish guitar, and to hear the guitar played with its humanness and rhythms intact is what delivers the performance of the artist. I would hope that (with the 1.7) I can still hear the sounding box of the guitar instead of 6 disembodied strings!! I would imagine, if using a top, top, top quality front end, with body, that it would not ALL be deracinted by the 1.7, would it?
Have you tried the CLX's with any subs and achieved great success? The quads always did terrible with subs. What about the 1.7s? Will they benifit from a sub or are they good as is?
Sam,
No, I haven't tried the CLXes with subs--yet. But, as I noted earlier in my post about JL subs, past experience with cone subs and 'stats/planars does not bode well. I've never found a cone sub that could blend with a planar without some trade-off in midband purity and overall coherence I was unwilling to make. HOWEVER, as I also noted in my JL posts, I haven't heard the JL subs and I am told by folks whose judgment I respect that they are different than other subs. Indeed, my pal Jacob Heilbrunn uses the big Fathoms with his 20.1s and is very happy with the results.
Jon
And then, the last part of my response, to which JV replied he did NOT say the Magnepans had "superb treble" (people are going to think we're meeting secretly, JV, since the post never made it onto the forum) was: In any case, you've answered my questions. So, it sound like the 1.7s have great transient response, reasonably good tone colors, superb low-level detail, purity, excellent soundstaging, depth layering, imaging and fantastic focus (an improvement you noted), super highs and killer transparency fom mid-bass to lower midrange. Oh, and an overall coherence with very high resolution. Did I miss anything?
(note to JV: I didn't mean to type "superb highs" just "super highs" as in it's-got-a-supertweeter, so it must go high enough).
Allow me a question that I see so frequently dropped into reviews, although coyly phrased by the writers (along the lines of "it's a bargain for only 20k," etc.) : If the 1.7, doing everything it does, showed up on the scene, made in, lets say, cone form, or even dipole form by some other manufacturer, in what price range would you, having heard so many other speakers, expect it to reside?
15k? 20K? 13K
As discussed in the past in many different forums. Prices are not just set based on how much it actually costs to make a product. It's based on what the market will withstand, Percieved value, where its manufactured, hype, cost of building/parts/shipping, inflation, profit margin, Very High prices in general because HiEnd audio is a very very small niche, fashion, audio reviews, who reviews it and in what magazine, etc..etc..... For example Magico claims that now with the new metal work speakers and inhouse machienes they can cut cost by around 60% (M5 Vs. Q5). Quads are now made in China so you can imagine how cheap that might be to build(recall $2 to build Nike shoes sold for $150 in USA). Air Tight and AudioTekne of Japan Vs. ARC locally here in the good old USA..... so lots of things. The term "It's a bargain for such and such price" is extremely overused by many reviewers. I think its a good term for only a FEW Products but now it gets thrown around way way too much. Good examples for bargains for price would be Maggies 1.6 or 1.7, Bryston CD player and DAC, some Parasound Amps because all these products for example offer performance at a level that generally cost in (most other brands) lots more. But these days people are awarding USB connectors, and random just about any product a "bargain award". Audition and personal taste is THE ONLY SOLUTION.
Sam, Interesting choices for bargain pieces, as I own the Parasound JC2 & Halo A21, and the next DAC is likely to be the Bryston BDA-1. I would add the VPI Classic, Benchmark DAC1 Pre, AppleTV and the E-Mu 0404 USB to that list.
How about the new Peachtree Nova? Ive heard nice things about this piece and have been thinking of adding it to my... JC2 / A21 (we think alike in this regard) Mac Mini and Maggie 1.6 setup.
I was just talking to one of the folks at Audio Consultants in the Chicago area this afternoon. They have four stores in the area. Three of them have now received demo pairs of the 1.7s. The store I was at expects to receive a pair sometime late next week--it's initial pair got lost in shipment. The other stores' salesmen say the speakers sound great "right out of the box," meaning no more than 30 or 40 hours, compared to the hundreds of hours other Maggies have taken to bloom and lose the overly "tight" sound.
I was told that Magnepan is indeed working on a 3.7 because the little 1.7 may on some material embarrass the 3.6. The delay in shipping 1.7s to dealers was explained to me as Magnepan's attempt to build up a supply so that customers don't have to wait six months for speakers once the demos hit the stores, as apparently happened when the 1.6 replaced the 1.5.
As I've already stated, Wendell Diller recently told me there is no development for an all quasi-ribbon 3.6 replacement. Just too busy with everything else. If you can afford 3.6s then you can afford to buy 1.7s to compare to them. The upcoming subwoofer from Magnepan paired with 1.7s could be a replacement for 3.6s.
Sam:
I'm not clear if your comment is directed to mine, but it appears so.
I'm not asking about materials, market value, etc. I'm asking a very simple question: what price range does a speaker of this quality "play" in? This isn't an economics question: it's exactly as specified. My Hurricane amps, for example, play in a range that equals/surpasses amps I"ve owned as well as amps I've reviewed -- by a considerable margin. I hate to keep referring readers to HP's back reviews, but if you care to read the review on the Hurricanes, he said he wouldn't have been surprised to see a price tag of $20,000 or higher due to the midrange. I'm asking the exact same question. Of course, it may be better for Jon to simply write his review: blogs can diminish some of the fun of reading a review, and it won't bother me a bit, given the extensive comments Jon has already made, to wait until the review. He's already written, for example, in his CES blog, "Here we have a $1995 speaker whose staging, focus, and low-level resolution are not just much better than that of its excellent predecessor but downright superb by any standard short of a CLX or an M5, with detailing in bass choirs that was so good it reminded me of the Maggie 1-Us ." Given that low-level detail will push any component a long way towards sounding more like reality and less like a pontilistiic by-the-dots reproduction, this is no mean feat. In fact, an easier word would be "continuous," a sense of there not being pockets of reality zapped in and out of the sonic picture only when the instrumental choirs are engaged. This is, to me, why I'm so excited about the speaker.
Actually, given a re-reading of his CES blog, I've just decided I don't give a damn what price it could have been priced at. I remember, when Tom Miiller and I were doing a review of the now-defunct Audio Artistry Dvorak speakers, the designer suggested that certain people wanted him to sell them at 12k (they were priced at 6k for the complete set, including the subs) so people would "take them seriously." The one thing these (Dvorak) speakers were missing were an obvious (to me) sense of low-level detail, so they sounded great, but still closer to electro-mechanical in their operation. It removed them a step from reality, which is what "continuousness" moves components towards.
It just would have been interesting to have Jon speculate (although Magnepan seems quite grounded and not subject to outside influences) where, were they inclined, they could have priced the speaker. It's now a non-issue. I'll wait for the review, and, unless there's something I read that really conflicts with what I've been able to glean, reading between the lines so far, we're going to be BFFs.
Brion,
When and where did you write with Tom?
Jon
Hi Jon:
TAS. '94
Jon, You'll know me by my name, since we were both at Fi, too.
Glen McLeod
I'll be darned!
How the hell are you?
Yikes! Had to sign in from my work site (I'm surprised their security even let me get to this site, but I had time to kill, so I thought....what the heck. And it worked! Cooooool: I can read it from work. I was tired of the New York Times crossword puzzled [it's too smart for me!]
I'm well. Now on the East Coast. Would've used my actual name, but it took 3 months to get the system to acutally register me. Finally just used my middle name, as I couldn't figure out what else to do -- and then it took it. So, I'm stuck with my middle name.
Glad to see TAS interacting with readers: it certainly is more exciting than having a 2 month delay in getting a response. And you're doing a hell of a job, I must say!
Glen
Still raising hell, as evidenced by the reviewer's background section you now have. Guess I don't have to BE at TAS to raise hell, huh? How's your lovely wife?
Otherwise, things are well, although I'm now on the East Coast.
My wife and I are well, thank you. I trust you're fine, too.
Two Questions: When was the last time you listened to the 1.6's? Secondly, what area of the 1.7's improved the most over the 1.6's?
Great questions. Jon can you comment?
JL and Sam,
The last time I listened to 1.6s in my home was about three or four years ago, but I have a friend who owns them and, thus, I hear them fairly often. I also have MMGs and MG 12s (which are essentially somewhat smaller 1.6s) in my theater room--and hear them every day or two.
I think I've been pretty detailed about how the 1.7s improve upon the 1.6s and other Maggies (see my blog above). You're asking me to pick just one area that would be "most improved," but I think it is the COMBINATION of better coherence, resolution, dynamic range, frequency extension, imaging, and soundstaging that makes them such a big step forward. However, if I were forced to pick just one standout virtue, it would be superior realism, particularly in the midband.
Jon
Jon,
I'm convinced. I am buying Maggies now. I am setting up a theater room, and can't decide if MMGs will work well enough or go with the 1.7s. Also, I have heard mixed reviews on the Maggie centers. What do you recommend for a center speaker? Thanks! Allen
FWIW, I bought my first real system years ago after being convinced by JV (then at Fi) that the 1.6 was a giant-killer. I auditioned them at several dealers and was underwhelmed each time, including one celebrated NYC dealer who played them with a Sunfire sub that stuck out like a sore thumb. The thing is, I really needed that last octave.
Long story short: After reading raves about REL subs, I bought a Storm III (since discontinued, I think) to go with my Maggies. I spent a weekend tweaking, after almost being convinced to return it after first firing it up (i.e., glaringly oibvious that sub was separate sound source). Perhaps it was just a lucky coupling to my 19'x17.5'x9.5' room, but that single REL sitting in the left corner (with Maggies 5' out into the room) stunned me with its invisibility. I trained all my faculties to discern its presence--including staring dead at it!--but could not. My Maggies sounded for all the world like they reached down to the 20s. One strange (at least to me) point for anyone who tries a REL: For whatever reason, the crossover point that locked everything in was at 28Hz, a (ridiculously low) level I would never have guessed would work.
I'm planning on returning to the audiophile fold after several long-distnace moves turned my into a computer/headphone guy. My first stop will be Maggie 1.7 and REL, though I will check out JL as well.
Hi - I just don't get it. Are the 1.7 really worth $1400 more than the MMG? Someone please try to convince me. Thanks.
8D -- how can someone convince you of what might be the most beautiful sunset if you haven't seen it? This question can only be answered by your senses and your ears. You're also asking if a 1.7 is really so good as to challenge a 20.1 at only $1995.
"Trying" to convince someone that Nikon is better than Canon is pointless, too -- until one looks at the two photos and then you can see which one looks more like a person and the other more like a reproduction of one.
Given that the MMG is not a full quasi-ribbon design, that in itself should tell you something. Also, a more rigid stand, a supertweeter, just to state the quality of the materials in the newer design.
What are you really asking here?
To Jon:
Any idea how the new Maggie 1.7 would interface with an older pair of ARC Classic 120s? Would they have enough power?
Thanks
Cliff
Those amps will drive the new Maggie's nicely.
Talking about matching amps: How well will it work with an ASR Emitter 1 HD?
Regarding subs for the 1.6's and most the 1.7's, I have a Rel B3 -- I find that most of the REL subs mate very well with maggies...fast and seamless, with no bottom end bloat. The Rel's disapear.
Dear Sir,
I have been a avid reader of TAS since 1986. Enjoy every issue, but I wish to make a suggestion: Please don't print any letters by persons who complain that the Hi-Fi gear you review is too expensive....I am tired of these people and their silly winging letters. They only occupy valuable magazine space.
Just throw them into the WPB. If I want to read reviews of mid -fi gear I can read the UK mags that review mid fi stuff. TAS and Stereophile are for serious audiophiles who value quality audio reporting .
Kindly start to do more reviews on cost-no-object equipment...and remind our readers of the trickle- down effect : Often manufacturers incorporate new developments/ technologies into their lower priced offerings.
I'm looking forward to TAS reviewing the new SoundLab A1-PX speakers. With their newer panels, they are really a revelation.
I'm of the opinion that only a tall speaker like the Maggies and Sound Labs can throw a more realistic image height.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks a million.
Antony
Dear Sir,
I have been a avid reader of TAS since 1986. Enjoy every issue, but I wish to make a suggestion: Please don't print any letters by persons who complain that the Hi-Fi gear you review is too expensive....I am tired of these people and their silly winging letters. They only occupy valuable magazine space.
Just throw them into the WPB. If I want to read reviews of mid -fi gear I can read the UK mags that review mid fi stuff. TAS and Stereophile are for serious audiophiles who value quality audio reporting .
Kindly start to do more reviews on cost-no-object equipment...and remind our readers of the trickle- down effect : Often manufacturers incorporate new developments/ technologies into their lower priced offerings.
I'm looking forward to TAS reviewing the new SoundLab A1-PX speakers. With their newer panels, they are really a revelation.
I'm of the opinion that only a tall speaker like the Maggies and Sound Labs can throw a more realistic image height.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks a million.
Antony
Dear Sir,
I have been a avid reader of TAS since 1986. Enjoy every issue, but I wish to make a suggestion: Please don't print any letters by persons who complain that the Hi-Fi gear you review is too expensive....I am tired of these people and their silly winging letters. They only occupy valuable magazine space.
Just throw them into the WPB. If I want to read reviews of mid -fi gear I can read the UK mags that review mid fi stuff. TAS and Stereophile are for serious audiophiles who value quality audio reporting .
Kindly start to do more reviews on cost-no-object equipment...and remind our readers of the trickle- down effect : Often manufacturers incorporate new developments/ technologies into their lower priced offerings.
I'm looking forward to TAS reviewing the new SoundLab A1-PX speakers. With their newer panels, they are really a revelation.
I'm of the opinion that only a tall speaker like the Maggies and Sound Labs can throw a more realistic image height.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks a million.
Antony
Exactly! Cost no object Equipment does not mean its always of Value Quality Audio. A lot of the stuff is over priced and hyped up which does not deliver or is just a fashion statement. You are here in a room(Magnepan 1.7) with a budget priced product that is not trickeled down, it stands on its own models reputation and can potentially perform at reference level in many catagories. If you have been reading TAS since 1986 you certainly are not a young/new audiophile and you may be at a stage of your career where you can afford cost no object stuff. Majority can not and new/young audiophiles that we need desperately to continue this awsome hobby will certainly get pushed away and not even invest in the Magazine if it has any more cost no object reviews. I think the ratio currently is good given how many people can afford what. Cost no object stuff should be there but certainly not at the same level of coverage as mid fi or entry level stuff. Lets get more people involved, get the next generation try something safer for the ears and higher quality than the iPOD. The super rich can fly to different cities or shops and do their own reviews and auditions for extra stuff that they are looking at. I think there is pretty good coverage of Cost no object stuff in both Stereophile and TAS. Anymore and we will loose more readers and potential new audiophiles. And yes keep up the good work TAS!!
Mr. Jonathan Valin,
Will the 1.7 models benefit from Grant VanderMye's stands? My understanding is that the 1.7s use a stiffer aluminum-and-MDF frame rather than Maggie’s traditional all-wooden one as well as being offered with aluminum options for the side rails. This should considerably tighten up all the resonance issues I face with my 1.6s, which Mr. Jacob Heilbrunn also reported in his March 3rd, 2010 (TAS 199) article. Some of your observations of the 1.7s compared to the older Maggies in your listening room seem to reflect the very same improvements which the Mye stands apparently provided for Mr. Heilbrunn. Could you or Jacob (or both) comment on this.
Thanks.
RK
Kabir,
I'll let you know. I've ordered up a Mye stand for the 1.7 (he is now making a dedicated one for the new Maggie) and will assess how well it works in the near future.
Jon
Cool! Thanks.
FWIW, I've read that according to Magnepan, the aluminum side strips on the 1.7's are purely cosmetic. In fact, they can be ordered with the old-style wood strips for a bit more. So they're basically the same unsupported MDF frame as previous models and I suspect the Myes will still work their magic. (OTOH, I also came across this somewhat cryptic comment: "Jim Winey of Magnepan told me metal frames were to heavy to ship, and many customers liked wood look better, but not as good." I assume that Winey was referring to the entire frame, rather than the side strips, but I could be wrong.)
Not true. While the aluminium strips may be cosmetic, the frame is NOT same as previous models.
Rana N. Kabir
Technology Consultant
CEO ENDS Technologies, Ltd.
Just heard the 1.7 at my local dealer this past weekend. I am going to trade in my MMG for a pair. Only problem is there is a waiting list of 6 people in front of me and the only pair that have arrived are the dealer's demo pair. Has anyone taken shipment of a pair yet? Are some of you seeing or experiencing the same thing? At this rate it looks like I'll get my speakers sometime this summer or later. :(
I'm sure these will be a very fine speaker! - I love the company! - They have been very open to sending me some "spare parts" free of charge! I have the MMG's that I have gutted and tweaked through several iterations. I think I now have the best of all worlds with the obbligotto caps and some good old fashion solid core silver wires. I found my MMG's needed a bit of tweaking in the direction of "analog" and the sound from them is very satisfying. I also use a T-amps with some additional cap mods in the silver/oil variety that have moved the sound in the right direction. I can get enough power by way of bi-amping/bi-wireing. I think from what I have experienced so far with the MMG's I would be tearing at the crossovers in the 1.7's from the get go. Not that I dont trust the folks at Magnepan! - they are just a bit "old school" as far as the nuts and bolts are concerned! It took me awhile to see the light as well. I didn't believe in "wires" until fairly recently! Now I know better, but I keep it in perspective!
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
This review is proof that Magnepan sound has always been far from optimal or even competitive. I go all the way back with HP recommending them in the late 1970s. So in engineering school I bought a pair, and could not stand the sound quality. Years later i bought a pair of Apogee Duettas. They too had many planar magnetic colorations (a harp would make the panel buzz like a bee).
So now a reviewer comes clean (typical in only after a solution is being offered). Disgusting - being mislead for decades. This and pushing of snake oil cables make for very skeptical readers,
But in any event it's good to see Magnepan offer a nice product - even if it took 35 years.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
Magnepan states on their website:
"In the latest Absolute Sound Magazine Buyer's Guide, the staff of the Absolute Sound voted the Magneplanar 1.6 as the "Best Bargain in High-End Audio" for speakers over $650 pair. Now, 2 months later -- announcing the Magneplanar 1.7."
If in Absolute Sound terms, the 1.7 is so much better than the 1.6, then how could the 1.6 even be recommended?
From my experience no other magazine (or few consumers) takes Magnepan seriously.
Jonathan you are a great, honest writer and I appreciate your truthfulness:
"While they still have lifelike size of image (at lifelike volumes), the focus of the images is VASTLY improved"
Again it only took 35 frickin years for TAS to come clean. I will definitely be reading your reviews, as you have earned my respect.
Perhaps because the 1.6 was so damned good? No one has ever said the 1.6 is the best speaker made, either by Magnepan or anyone else. But Magnepan has long been known for extraordinary bang for the buck. The 1.6 was probably the best speaker in its price range, and if the 1.7 is an improvement (I haven't heard it yet myself) it will be an even bigger bargain.
I might add that I haven't heard many, either individuals or reviewers, who don't take Magneplanars, for many years the most popular high end speaker, seriously. Just take a look at the old Stereophile reviews if you don't believe me. Or really, any reviews in any serious publication, I don't think I've ever seen one that was less than ecstatic. What does happen in the case of Stereophile is that products get dropped automatically from the recommended components list after three years, the rationale being that sonic memory isn't good enough to rate them so long after testing. Since unlike some high end manufacturers Magnepan doesn't refresh models with insignificant upgrades merely for the sake of a new review, they get dropped from the list automatically. But I don't think anyone familiar with the sound of acoustical instruments would say they don't belong there.
The 1.7s are now mine! Muhahaha
Just got back from a 10 hour roadtrip to pick them up, still tweaking the final position, but they sound utterly fantastic!
front of the "chamber":
s142.photobucket.com/albums/r117/dawsonblah/?action=view¤t=front.jpg
back of the room:
s142.photobucket.com/albums/r117/dawsonblah/?action=view¤t=rear.jpg
John, any word on the Mye stands?
Recently listened to the Magnepan 1.7 driven by an Ayre V-5xe amp: nice, but I was not that impressed. Then the dealer hooked up a Bryston 3b SST2. Much, much better- bass, resolution and imaging all were improved. This depressed me as I already have the Ayre. I plan on purchasing the Maggies, but I guess I will need to spring for an amp as well. Besides the Brystons, any suggestions on alternative amplification for these speakers? I'll pass on the Soulution and AR Reference series- a tad too pricey. I do think highly of Audio Research (Phonostage is the PH7) and wonder which of their amps (current or earlier models) might mate well with the 1.7s. I have a solid state preamp (Ayre K-1xe) so think solid state amp will be the way to go. I have never had much success with driving a tube amp with a solid state preamp. I look forward to hearing back from you all.
I have the Maggie 3.6 and I drive them with the Parasound Halo A21 and the Parasound JC2. I also use an ARC PH7. The results exceeded expectations. Wonderful pairing of amp and speakers.
Curbfeeler,
Thanks for the suggestions. I hear great things about the Parasound products.
Dr. Solution,
I own a Spectron Musician III Mk 2. I love this amp. Granted that solid state is not everyone's cup of tea, nor is a Class D amp, but this amp has just the right combination of power and capacitance and power supply to drive Maggies, IMHO. I have 1.7's on order; so I will be able to comment even more thoroughly once they get broken in.
But the Spectron is the best amp I have owned, and I have owned plenty of them, AR's, Mark Levinson, Eico (long time ago), Parasound, Bryston to name a few. I have heard people praise them even more when they use two Mk2's, one for each channel. But I am mighty satisfied with both their service and performance.
Just sayin'.
Oofer
Oofer,
Thanks. I'll be interested in your experience when your Maggies arrive and you've had a chance to put them through their paces!
Jon,
Great review on the 1.7's. Hope to hear more in the future.
Is my Musical Fidelity A3.5 integrated amplifier (150WPC/8ohm, 240WPC/4ohm), enough juice to run the 1.7's. I am not a connisour of extreme loud music, preferrring the moderate, with the occasional excursion to the loud realm.
The Magnepan dealer is a fair drive from where I live, so I would like to know if my amp would be good enough, before going on a road trip.
Thanks,
Myles
Jon - I was asking a dealer about the new maggies and he says they are notorious for bad customer service and bad dealer support. He is not a dealer for them, but probably could easily be. Is this just bad-mouthing, or is this a pronounced trend with them? I really loved these and am seriously thinking about selling my B&W 804s's to finance them. Sound move?? (Pun intended)
Tim
Magnepan has excellent Service & Support. Run from any dealer that tells you otherwise!
Rana N. Kabir
Technology Consultant
CEO ENDS Technologies, Ltd.
Jon,
Nice review on the 1.7's. I was reading the SRC+Maggies blog, and read that a Solutions amp that put out 240wpc/4ohms would be OK to drive the 1.7's.
I have a MF A3.5 integrated that is 150wpc/8ohm, 240wpc/4ohm. I am using it presently with 2 Paradigm Signature 1v.2 , with the Be tweeter.
Would you anticipate any problems with driving the 1.7's with the A3.5. I would like to know as the Magnepan dealer is a fair road trip away.
Thanks,
Myles
Jon,
Nice review on the 1.7's, and hope to here more from others as they incorporate these in their systems.
I have never owned any ESL type speakers, but would like to try them out.
I have a Musical Fidelity A3.5 integrated amp (150wpc/8ohms, 240wpc/4ohms). Is this enough to provide some juice to the MMG, 1.6,1.7's.
Thanks,
Myles
Hello Jonathan,
I enjoyed your review, as well as all of your reviews, and trust your opinion. BTW, I have Maggie 1.6's.
Sudden thought: Since it has been many years since you wrote "The RCA Bible" (I still have a copy), I was wondering if you might consider re-reviewing some of the best RCA's (not the entire library) with the equipment you have now. I don't remember what you had then. I'll bet you would find some are better than you thought, and some maybe not as good. For example, I recently played LSC-2222, and I think it may be the very best (in terms of "three dimensionality") that Layton ever recorded. I still think Dorati's Firebird is THE BEST!
Keep up the good work.
Best regards, Robert
I recently bought the 1.6`s, and must say im really, really impressed.
I have been on the hunt for "my speaker" a long time now, and finally belive I have found it in the Maggies. My recently and former speaker has been Dynaudio Countour 3.4 / Audio Physic Scorpio 2, Virgo 5, and the last Pioneer S3-EX. The Maggies I belive are superiour in every aspect, and they are still in their early burn in period..so whats happens in the months to come, could be very interesting, when they sound this good already.
My amp is DK Design Mk3, a very powerful tubehybrid which drives these speakers without any effort, wonderful musicality. Cdplayer is Linn 1.1, with Audioquest Sky signal and Kilimanjaro speaker cable. I also use Nordost Tyr jumpers
Even though I feel the bass in the Maggies are superb, I missed the deepest organ octaves, and integrated an Audio Vector M-sub Signature with tremendous seamless and invisible luck..from here, I will never ever consider speakers with the boxdesign, since I find them inferiour.
(I even liked the 1.6 better than 1.7, tested in same room with same equipment. They were both new, so ofcourse they will both flourish in the months to come, but I found the 1.6 to be more intimate and "magical". The 1.7 sounded more steril and studiolike for my taste, with less soul.
Anyway, I highly recommend these speakers, they will give you goose skin and many hours where you will shake your head and smile with joy. Match them with high end equipment, and you will never turn back
I now realize that I have one major reservation about the Maggies- my cat. Anyone with a good suggestion on how to keep one's cat from using them as scratching posts? Using a cover for them on a routine basis seems a bit of a hassle, but is one way to go. Shooting the cat is probably not a feasible alternative.
Has anyone had experience with the solid state Audio Research 300.2 driving Magnepans?
Hi,
I am interested in buying the 1.7s. I have about $1500 for an amp. Any suggestions?
You may have to stretch your budget a little, but go on audiogon and look for a used ARC VT-100. It will drive them nicely.
I have never heard them personally but have heard that the Channel Islands baby monblocks(D-100) have the best of both worlds in sound performance(ie: solid state drive power with tube musicality)/I believe they are $1599.
Ralph - Check out the Emotia website. I think you will find exactly what you are looking for there. I currently am driving my Maggies with a Soundcraftsmen A5002 and if it ever needs to be replaced, an Emotiva XPA-2 or a pair of XPA-1 mono-blocks is what I would buy. Best bang for the buck in the entire industry.
JohnH,
I see no problem with using 1.7s as home theater front left/front right and rear surround speakers, provided you don't block the screen with the front pair. (You could also use the much less expensive MMGs for rear surrounds.) Obviously you could not use the 1.7s as a center-channel speaker; however, Magnepan makes a center-channel speaker of its own, the CCR, which would mate perfectly wit the 1.7s. As for subs...I tried to get the fastest (which generally means a smaller-diameter driver) on the market and cross it over as low as possible.
Jon
Hello Jon,
I'm enjoying my Magnepan 1.7 which are driven by Odyssey audio kismet monoblock amps. I have chosen those equipments because of your great review of the 1.7 and of the Odyssey audio khartago and I was not disappointed at all. The sound I'm listening to in my room by all means is stunning and compared to the cost I paid I consider it one of the greatest bargains in audio industry. So thanks a lot Jon for your great advice.
I would like to seek your opinion on the imaging of the 1.7, is it capable of good imaging? And by good I mean pin point imaging(Not the Magico level of course). Up until now I couldn't achieve a precise imaging with the 1.7 without sacrificing the sweetness and warmth and the 3D like effect that I get from them and still at end the outcome is not that attracting. Maybe it's my room (Which by the way is 16.5'X19.5') or my equipments. I understand that being a dipole speaker usually prevent from precise and pin point imaging, but I think that what I'm getting is somewhat overblown and sometimes mixed imaging, something that I always feel the Magnepan1.7 are capable of doing better. I wish to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Thanks,
The quasi-ribbon bass is improved, too, in resolution and dynamics, although I wouldn't say it goes abundant added than that of the 1.6s at least, Home Theater not in my room quite solid and collapsed down into the 40s.