More CES Excitement: Magnepan Introduces the MG 1.7!
As curious as I am about the Magico Q5 intro--and I'm deadly curious--I've gotta admit that were I restricted to attending just one premier at the upcoming CES, I would have to skip the Q5 in favor of the unveiling of the MG 1.7 from Magnepan--Maggie's replacement for the speaker I consider to be the single best buy in all of high-end audio, the MG 1.6. Yep, after years and years in the Magnepan line, Maggie's superb wooden-framed two-way quasi-ribbon/planar-magnetic 1.6 floorstander is being put out to pasture and in its place comes the aluminum-framed entirely quasi-ribbon three-way 1.7 floorstander with improved parts, crossovers, and panels. And all this for a mere $100 more than the classic 1.6. (The 1.7 is priced at $1995 per pair.)
Here is Magnepan's press release on the MG 1.7:
The First Full-Range Ribbon Speaker from Magnepan
Announcing the successor to the iconic MG1.6 which was selected [by yours truly] as "Best Value in High-End Audio" in the recent Absolute Sound magazine for loudspeakers over $650 per pair. The MG1.7 is a full-range quasi-ribbon loudspeaker that should continue the tradition of awards for Best Value.
The MG 1.7 os a departure from Magnepan's forty-year history of using planar-magnetic for the bass or lower midrange. The use of quasi-ribbon technology down into the lower midrange and bass will provide a new level of coherence.
The MG 1.7 also boast a quasi-ribbon supertweeter with a wider "sweet spot [taking it] one step closer to the delicacy and detail of Magnepan's true ribbon tweetern.
A new modern styling with wrap-around aluminum trim on the MG 1.7 is also a departure from Magnepan's more conservative cosmetics....
I have been told on the best authority (by someone who actually participated in the blind listening sessions where the 1.7's voicing was compared to that of the 1.6) that the new model is, indeed, all that Magnepan claims it is, setting a new standard in coherence for a quasi-ribbon Maggie, reproducing more detail top-to-bottom, improving low-level resolution and large-scale dynamics, and simply sounding more realistic than the already-quite-realistic-sounding 1.6. Of course, the proof of this pudding will be the listening, and to that end I've already put in my bid to be the first to review the 1.7. (I believe I was the first to review the 1.6.) However, when you consider how much of the absolute sound the 1.6 delivered and how much more you may end up getting from the 1.7 for under $2k...well, that's precisely why the Maggie intro would take precedence over the Magico intro if I could only attend one (which, happily, isnt the case). I can't afford a Q5, no matter how great it turns out to be; I (and a lot you guys) can afford a 1.7.
Frankly, between Q5s and Maggie 1.7s, this CES is shaping up to be one of the best in years. The MG 1.7 will be shown at T.H.E. Show in the Flamingo Hotel in Conference Room A on the 4th floor.
Comments
JV. Please keep us posted on the new MG 1.7 early impressions and associated equipment.
Sam,
Will do. Although I'm slated to cover my usual beat at CES (speakers over $25k), I'm gonna make time to hear the 1.7. It may not cost $25k+, but I'm willin' to bet it'll be plenty good.
Jon
Please report on amplifier matches too. And what amps are used with 1.7 at THE show. Any Idea when it might be released for purchase for the general public?
Bryston will be providing the electronics, with the exception of the front-end, which will be our Blue Smoke Entertainment Systems Black Box music server. Cabling will be provided by Kubala-Sosna.
Ron Lapporte
Blue Smoke Entertainment Systems
JV:
In addition to your beloved Soulution electronics, maybe you could arrange to hear the 1.7s with some affordable gear. Maybe a pair of Odyssey Audio Stratos Mono amps... As good as the Khatargo is, I can't see it driving the voltage-hungry Maggies with much success.
Amandela77
JV:
Maybe you could arrange to review the new Maggies with some affordable gear, lik Odyssee
Amandela77
Wonder if these will be 100% made in America or if Magnepan too will source their assembly or components from CHINA ! ??, like so many other "High End" companies...
Talked to the boys in Cinn city on Wed. and found out that somebody had just picked up their 1.7 demos. I can't wait to read the reveiw.
I actually like magnepan speakers but I have always felt they were just trendy not true high end speakers almost like Bose for the listener that doesn't like real Base. Has anyone ever been to a concert and thought I could be listening to a recording on Magnepan speakers? Of course not they can't produce sound that sound close to real. This is from a speaker with enough surface area that it should cause an emotional response just from the air movement alone.
These speakers require very careful amplification, room, and placement to shine.....otherwise yes they are not impressive. Even the 20.1 for 13K must have the appropriate amplification, room and placement. But when set up right......can do the trick. I have heard quite a few different models in different settings including at shows and surely they sound completely different if the above 3 mentioned criteria are not met for the specific model.
Magnepan trendy, not high end??? That comment alone makes everything
you say or do meaningless, and likely dangerous. Take your feeeeelings to Nancy's tit.
and likely dangerous. Take your feeeeelings to Nancy's tit. my feelings will go where I want. My opinion is under your skin and if it was that easy, Be very glad you haven't seen me say anything dangerous, let alone do anything dangerous. but the real puzzle is not that so many get upset, they think that just because you spent a lot of money for something doesn't not trendy. Lets look at it this way they produce mid range to highs extremely well but the drop off is severe from there considering the size of these speakers its not something I'm not willing to pay for. Now seeing the constant load that these speakers put on a system they can uncover weaknesses in a amplifier. Now i do like hard rock music but i also like Pat Metheny,Lee Ritenour,Stanley Clarke, Lenny white, Billy Cobham,George duke,Al Dimeola, Kim Waters, Carol King,Amel Larrieux. I will say that Cheap Trix sounded the best on these speakers.
David K M,
Sorry, but your post is just plain ridiculous. Many, many, many concertgoers--including me and Ol' Man River himself--have (for decades) found Magneplanars to be among the most lifelike reproducers of the sound of actual acoustic instruments in actual halls. Indeed, as I have written in TAS, the single most fool-me-realistic reproduced sound I ever heard was a piano sonata played back through a pair of Magneplanar 1-Us many moons and sunrises ago. BTW, how you can call a company that has been in business with virtually the same lineup for almost forty years--since the very dawn of what we now call high-end audio--"trendy" is beyond me. In fact, if there is one thing this staid tried-and-true company is NOT, it's trendy. Flush out your head gear, new guy.
JV
This post would be laughable, if not so pathetic. To even compare BLOSE to Magnepan(or ANYTHING remotely High-End) is ludicrous. BUT THEN- There are SO MANY deaf, dumb and hype-infected out there(n'est-ce pas?),
Bhose has been in business for over forty years selling just about everything with the same patented cross-over to produce a sound that most consider trendy. They know to some it's all image. But to others it's image and immersion.
I have had a pair of Tympani 1(u)s for around 30 years or so. Still have them in the HT, in fact. They were great in their day. (By contrast, I tried some MMGs for a short time and found them unlistenable.) I have listened to most of the current magnepans. My view is that there are (nearly) insurmountable issues with magnepans, including: (1) the dipole effect is permanent, and while this may be pleasing, it is hardly accurate; (2) the LF is very limited; (3) the push-only planar drivers tend to have pretty high distortion; (4) they tend to be highly directional; and, (5) the build quality is frequently less-than magnificent.
The MMG is their budget model, kind of unfair to compare it to the 1-U's. I used to have 1-D's and yeah, they were better than the MMG's, more natural, cleaner, louder, and deeper. Still, the MMG's are so good that the pair I bought for my office ended up in the living room! It seems to me that they're properly compared to speakers in their own price range, all of which, to use the technical term, they blow away.
BTW, MMG's need 200 hours of break in -- if they didn't have that, the sound you heard would have been bass shy and constipated. And they benefit hugely from being vertical and centered on your ear, like their bigger siblings. In that orientation, they sound as good as the 1.6's -- less bass, better imaging, some say a bit more musical. Which IMO makes them not only the budget speaker of the decade, but the budget speaker of the century.
I don't think that the dipole effect is any less accurate than the in-phase radiation spilled by omnis. In fact, dipoles interact with the room less than omnis do, which is I think one of the reasons they image so well even in untreated rooms. If you don't like the back wave, try a couple of small diffusers at the first reflection point behind the speakers, it's pretty much the standard fix at this point.
Seems to me that planar LF extension depends entirely on the model, as it does with cones. The smaller Maggies have always sounded bass shy to me, but not the big ones. A 20.1 is good to 25 Hz, an MMG to 50 -- big difference. What you don't get with Maggies is that sloppy, honked-up ported enclosure bass. Bass instruments sound like instruments rather than blobs. Even fairly high end speakers are using ports at this point, something I don't understand at all -- surely if you're spending several thousand on a speaker you can afford to drive an acoustic suspension driver or dipoles? I do think it's fair to say that at a given price point, a full-range box will have more bass than a planar (and output and sensitivity), and that that could be a consideration for those who listen mostly to rock.
I agree too that single ended planar drivers have high distortion, but then, cones have their own problems, which unless you're in Magico territory are almost always worse. And of course you can always spring for the 20.1's, with their push-pull quasi ribbon mid. Also, planars always seem to have annoying "snare drum" resonances in the mylar, and the full-range quasi ribbons seem to suffer from IM between the woofer and tweeter sections, not sure why Magnepan doesn't isolate them mechanically.
Directionality isn't good if you're throwing a party, but it's ideal if you're sitting in a chair doing real listening -- less interaction with room acoustics and you're less likely to disturb the neighbors. For me, it's a plus, but, of course, YMMV.
Build quality: yeah, but has anyone ever had these things fall apart on them? After many years in a humid climate the coils loosen and require repair, but AFAIK that's not a function of build quality, both planar and cone drivers deteriorate over time. And Magnepan supports their models for many, many years. While I admit I've occasionally cussed when removing a speaker sock, I'd rather Magnepan spent money on things that affected the sound than on fit-and-finish and fancy materials that appeal more to vanity than to the ears.
So, what I like about Magnepans: inimitable bang for buck, unpretentious sonic integrity, and a sense of realism that no box speaker less costly than a yacht can provide. With planars, I feel like I'm looking at reality through a cloudy, spattered window. With boxes, I have the sense I'm watching something on TV. The notes are all there, sometimes even an image, but there's no sense that the instruments are actually there. But of course it depends on what you want to do, if you want to sit down and listen to acoustical instruments planars are great but if you want to listen to heavy metal and throw loud parties you're probably better off with a box.
Totally agree with JV. Mind you, David K M would have a point re 'not like the concert' if his taste in music is limited to heavy metal and the like.
As far as trendy, that got me in stitches :) If there is one company in all hifi-dom that is the exact opposite of trendy, that's Magnepan!
Does anyone know whether the changes to the stand and crossover for the 1.7 were designed to achieve the benefits of the related mods to the 1.6 (and other maggies)?
JamOn,
Don't know about the stands and the (presumably stiffer) aluminum "enclosure," but the biggest change--going from the traditional quasi-ribbon tweeter/planar-magnetic woofer to an entirely quasi-ribbon driver combo (both tweets and mid/bass)--clearly ISN'T derived from hot-rodded 1.6s. One would think that the crossover changes (hinge point and parts) were dictated by the driver changes.
Jon
Jon,
Good point - thanks. I guess it remains to be seen whether, in addition to the changes you mention, Magnepan has fully upgraded the crossover and wiring parts or if there will still be room for even more improvement by modding the 1.7. One also has to wonder whether a new 3.6 will be too far behind.
Happy New Year!
G
JamOn
JamOn,
I think your guess is right. I figure we will be seeing updated 3.6s and 20.1s in the not-too-distant future.
BTW, Magnepan just announced that the display room in the Flamingo at T.H.E. Show has been changed. The new room for the MG !.7 launch will be Conference Room A on the 4th floor of the Flamingo.I will make this change in my original blog above.
Jon
As a long time Magnepan owner, having owned MG IIb, Tympani IV, and currently a pair of highly modded Tympani IVa's I've felt that the place the Maggies could be improved in most was in their crossovers parts. Given that each line of Maggies is built to a price point, they are exceptional values for the quality of music reproduction they bring to the home, given proper set up and quality associated electronics. The full potential of my particular pair of Tympani IVa's was only realized when the crossovers, wiring, and binding posts were rebuilt with higher quality parts. For all Maggie models I highly recommend the Mye Sound speaker stands, which Jacob Heilbrunn reviewed in TAS. They do make a significant difference in the quality of the sound, making very good speakers even better, bringing them closer to the musical truth. It is well worth the cost, and Grant VanderMye will do custom work at your request (like he did for me since I reverse the tweeter/midrange panels on my system to avoid defraction effects from the ribbon tweeter housings, a suggestion made by HP long ago.
One of the great things about Magnepan is they will support all of their products, no matter how old or how modded. After the crossover mods, I had the speakers rebuilt at the factory, giving me new bass and midrange panels and new ribbon tweeters. Magnepan respected my request to not mess with the mods, even though it meant having to do a couple of unconventional things themselves to recover the speakers. That is great service.
To JV and everyone on this forum, Happy New Year. May 2010 be filled with great listening experiences. JV, I look forward to your review of the 1.7.
Larry
A very happy New Year to you, too,Larry! And, I gotta say, I'm also looking forward to reviewing the 1.7s. Writing about the 1.6s and the 3.5s and 20s were three of the highlights of my career as an audio-equipment reviewer.
I struggled with 1.6's for 8 years and never really liked them. I changed everything in the system around the maggies and eventually decided to give up on them and just get new speakers. I picked up some Usher's which, in my opinion, completely smash the 1.6. I had the maggies in every conceivable configuration and they just never really grew on me. I spent more time screwing around with placement than actually enjoying music. Since getting rid of the maggies, I also picked up a pair of Proac 1SC's for nearfield listening, something the 1.6's were terrible at.
Planars ARE hard to set up, although spending 8 years trying to do so with a speaker you "never really liked" seems...excessive.
am i reading the commentary correctly in that the sub is "built in"?
also, would it be possible to integrate the speakers into a wall or do they need space in the back? Lastly, what kind of receivers can they be powered with?
thanks!
MG
These speakers need to be powered by a gutsy/ballsy amp of at least 100 wpc. Inexpensive receivers need not apply. When one purchases these speakers, one is "playing with the big dogs" and needs to treat them accordingly.
Just wanted to add you need at least 3' behind them if they're to sound their best (that's true of omnis as well, but omnis do much better than dipoles if you can't give it to them).
OH BOY!!! This introduction by Magneplanar now means that the 1.6s are "discontinued models" and can be bought used at greater discount. I might even be able to get dispensation to get a pair!
A good sense of humor makes it ALL sound better!
JV, do you know if the MG 1.7 will be a 2-way or 3-way design? If so, do you know the crossover points?
I had the MG 1.6 in my room recently but sold them because the sound of the Quasi-ribbons seemed somewhat different from that of the planar driver. Perhaps the new MG 1.7 will remedy that situation. This could be Magnepan's biggest potential upgrade in many years, especially if they follow suit and upgrade their other models.
Thank you, and Happy New Year!
Frank
Frank A,
The 1.7 appears to be a three-way design, with quasi-ribbon supertweeter, quasi-ribbon tweeter, and quasi-ribbon mid/bass panels. And, yes, I think we're in for an period of innovation with good ol' Magnepan.
Jon
Dear Jonathan,
Talking about Maggies. Can I kindly ask you a personal question?
I am currently using the MG 1.G paired with Parasound A21 + P3 + Audio Analogue Maestro 192/24. Cables are Stereovox (Colibri XLR and Firebird). Power cables are Acrolink. I listen to all kinds of music.
Sometimes I feel the treble is a bit too aggressive and I assume the main reason of this is because of the pre-amp. I am thinking of replacing the pre-amp with Audio Research SP17L.
What do you think of this combination? Or do you have any other suggestions?
Many thanks in advance.
regards,
Radjasa
Radjasa,
I think you would be well advised to try out the ARC SP17L, preferably with an ARC tube amp. That would be an excellent combination. You might also want to consider giving a iisten to Audio Tekne cables and interconnects.
Jon
Thank you very much, Jonathan !!!!
Hello Radjasa,
I have my MG1.6 since 2003. I did also felt there is a bit aggressive on 'high' freq. range. Even I did some pre-amp. rolling but result negative. Maybe the optional stock wirewound resistor for high freq. attenuation will help.
I did also struggle around this 1.6 for years and finally made it sings nice in my 10.5' x 29' listening room. I think a high power class AB type power amp. will help a lot.
Looking forwards to Jonathan's 1.7 review.
Happy New Year !!
Jonathan Valin -- Thu, 12/31/2009 - 23:48
Planars ARE hard to set up, although spending 8 years trying to do so with a speaker you "never really liked" seems...excessive.
-------------------------------
I bought them brand new and at the time $1600 was a heck of a lot of money for me so I didn't want to sell them for a loss. The closest audio shop to me was about 4 hours away so I really couldn't audition speaker very extensively. It took awhile to realize they just couldn't perform the way I liked.
76,
I'm sorry if I was overly flip in my reply to you.Your explanation makes your long-term dilemma with 1.6s more understandable. I've noticed that you're not alone in having had problems with 1.6s or other Maggies (though the other problems do not appear to be as severe as yours). All I can say, is that I never had a coherency (or any other kind of) problem with 1.6s in my listening rooms in the several years I had them in my system. In fact, I'd still be listening to them in a second system if they hadn't been damaged in shipping. To me they were the MOST coherent Magneplanars capable of full-range sound. Bigger Maggies with true ribbon tweeters, like 3.6s and 20s, DID present problems in placement and coherence which I found tougher to solve. It is a hi-fi truism that dipoles are easier to place than monopoles because their figure-eight radiation pattern eliminates sidewall reflections; this may be the case, but dealing with that back wave, treble-beaming, and comb-filtering from floor/ceiling radiation has, in my experience, made placement of large planar loudspeakers generally tougher than monopole cone speakers.
Jon
I couldn't agree more. I have heard the 1.6, 3.6, 20.1, in different settings....and boy do they require specific room, placement and amplification.......Ive heard them sound great at some places to down right intolerable at others. IMHO like I said in my past posts.....these Must be in the appropriate room, position, and amp to work well or else will disappoint.
Thank you very much, Edge !!!
A question regarding the imaging aspects of Magnepans and other dipoles: is the imaging as precise as say, a Magico, WATT, etc? I've only heard them (the 1.6) in a dealer showroom once, and musically, it was fine, although not rich tonally, which, I suspect, was the electronics used, but the imaging itself seemed less 3D (or more specifically, precisely placed) than dynamic loudspeakers. I've had dipoles before - the now-defunct Dvoraks (Audio Artistry) and Nola speakers - and always wondered. The Nolas imaging ws fine, the Dvoraks fairly good (but not with tubes, only solid state). I'm sure that, musically speaking, dipoles, in general, are great (and the coherence certainly surpasses box speakers), but was curious about this particular aspect. I don't NEED x-marks-the-spot precision, which is not part of concert-going (for me, anyway), but I nonetheless enjoy being able to discern the precise location of a vocalist or instrumental image.
I find this very exciting news and certainly hope that it is a smashing success for Magnepan, especially given the stratospheric prices of many box speakers these days. One can only hope that a $2k speaker can cure one of the audiophilus nervosa aspect of wanting to hear every last ping and ting of resolution. I doubt a 2k'er will do that, but something that rivals 10 or 15k speakers would be considered a smashing success. 'Course, 15k ain't what it once was, going back to the IRS (the speaker, not the agency) days. I've complained much that for what one once got for 8k, one can barely hope to see in today's 12-15k speakers (and why is that?!?!?). Even a (partial) bottom octave for less than 15k these days?? Fat chance, it seems. Except for Ushers, methinks.
Also, I'd understood that low-level resolution of some dipoles was not as good as cones. HP commented on this aspect of previous generations of Magnepans, if I recall correctly. Is this a truism about dipoles (the legendary coupling of the QRS-ID elements aside)? I'd owned WATT/Puppies in their first 3 iterations, and no other speaker I've had since has matched the purity of sound in the sense of low distortion or resolution. Of course, early WATTS lacked a sense of the ambience of the hall: they were more about the direct sound of instruments themselves than the surrounding environment. Just curious.
Again, I'd love for this to be NOT a good-for-the-money speakers, but an unqualified success. I still have ALL my previous speakers except for the WATTS (and the Avalons, which were quite pure-sounding) in the basement.It would be heavenly to hear all the fine details of live instruments at bargain (read: real-world circa 1990) pricing, not the insane costs of today's higher quality speakers. One wonders if it is possible to read a review that doesn't have some major caveat on reasonably priced speakers. I'm still mulling over REG's review of the PSBs and would jump at the chance to buy a PSB or Magnepan that didn't require sacrificing much. I can live without a complete bottom octave, but would enjoy hearing down to around 36 Hz. Besides, I can always put in that Nola Thunderbolt I've been using as an end table! And besides, like VPI, it's a tremendous pleasure to have the longtime manufacturers give the younger whippersnappers a knockout punch (speaking as an old-timer -- and oldER listener -- too).
In general, what you get with properly set up Magnepans compared to omnis is a huge soundstage, tremendous depth, a sense of height, and less precision in the placement of the instruments. That last I think is a result of some combination of the backwave and the lateral offset of the drivers. As you point out, though, instruments don't have that pin point imaging in real life -- in fact, when I close my eyes in a concert hall, sometimes they don't even seem to be coming from where they should be. To my ears, and to those of a lot of people who are familiar with live music, when properly set up in a decent room (not likely at a dealers, dipoles really do need careful placement), Maggies produce what is overall the most realistic image of any speaker when fed with good material (and ruthlessly expose even minimal multi-miking). Whether this will appeal to you, with poorly miked real world recordings and your personal preference for precision, is something I think you can only answer by listening (at home, even if a dealer had the planars properly set up the image is sensitive to room acoustics and placement).
I've heard imaging from other high end speakers that took my breath away, seemed almost holographic in their precision, but that's the problem -- it has the air of a hologram, a miniature sound stage in which individual instruments float on a horizontal plane. More an impressive hi fi effect IMO than a reproduction of live sound.
It is very true that Maggies don't have good low-level resolution. Whether the 1.7's improve on that I don't know, reviewers are always saying that it becomes less of a problem with every generation. I'm not even sure what causes it.
From your description of your bass needs, it sounds like you'd be happiest with a 3.6 or 20.1 though if the 1.7 goes as deep as some of the early reviews say it does they might work as well (I'm assuming you have a large enough room). But really, this is very dependent on acoustics and placement, in some rooms dipoles have much more bass extension than in others.
Otherwise: well, my experience with planars is that they have more caveats and quirks than other speakers. You are always going to hear this and that little problem. At the same time, my experience has been that they're the most satisfying speakers I've ever lived with, whether at home or in the studio. They have a certain realism to them that most other speakers don't have. So while they may not play as loud or go as deep, may have an annoying mylar sound, what have you, they also have a breathtaking quality of realism that makes you love listening to them, just love listening to them, year in and year out. And in my experience, pretty much everyone recognizes that and reacts to it, even people who are completely indifferent to all things techie or hi fi.
P.S. It would make a great article for someone to explain what "comb filtering" means and exactly what it would sound like in one's system. For that matter, "lobing" is hardly something the average listener would even know what to listen for.
And finally, I appreciated Mr. Martin's creating a section for the reviewers to list their listening preferences (i.e., what's important to them [those of us from old days know Steven Stone was an "imaging freak" but who on the staff is these days???]) and the size of their room. It seems others were as curious as I was, from the responses I read. This truly puts TAS into a context lacking for quite some time.
is Karthago stereo amplifier strong enough to drive the Maggie 1.6 or 1.7 ?
or is it better to go go with class d ...
thanks
Ps I am helping a friend with very limited budget to build the best possible system for the money
Khartago, may not work well. I'd say it will need 200 to 250+wpc. The more the better. Less than 200 has high potential for dissapointment. I'd at least audition if going that route. Consider streaching the budget for long term satisfaction. I'd try to get it right the first time around.
Sam has a good point. Maggies aren't difficult loads, but they aren't high in sensitivity, either. Plus, they tend to sound more realistic at higher volumes (i.e., they need to be played louder than certain other speakers to achieve lifelike dynamic range). I don't know--obviously--whether these caveats will apply to the MG 1.7s, but I'd be surprised if the new Maggies didn't need some power, too.
thanks Sam and Jonathan
When are these supposed to hit the market? I've had a pair of 1.6s since day one and would like to check out the 1.7. I have them in a 20 x 16 room with 225 wpc and yes, while I will agree that the sweet spot may be small, I didn't spend $20k (23k exact) to please anyone but myself. The big box audio store stuff is in the basement for my buddies that want big box sound and multiple sweet spots.
Stu,
FYI, one of the improvements in the 1.7 is a separate and narrower quasi-ribbon super-tweeter that's said to improve high-frequency dispersion and thus widen the "sweet spot."
Jon
Thanks Jonathan,
I've got my cash ready! I just switched out my Dennon AVR5800 for the Elite SC-25 Im using an Adcom GFA555 II amp for the front channels and my maggies really love it.
Stu
I have a pair of 2.7s. I'd love to hear a comparison soon.
i have the 2.7 magnepan's too ,i purchased them in 1994 i love them but don't have the right amp for them because i wanted a 7.1 surround system so i have denon 2882 ci rec. which amp do you have? is it possible to hook them up to a sub then to the rec? thanks
Looking forward to your review & finding out the release date. I wonder what improvements were made concerning the crossovers? I plan on buying a pair, if all is positive. Thanks Jon.
hello
are there pieces of news because of the technical details?
I heard the 1.7s at THE show yesterday. The amps were Bryston (28B monoblocs I believe). The source was an Esoteric SACD player. The preamp was also Bryston. I was stunned by what I heard from this speaker. Forget that they cost only $2k, the impression of an orchestra being in the room was incredible...realistic weight, dynamics...shocking!
I stopped by the Magnepan demonstration yesterday. I was with David Chesky, and we both felt this was an important step forward for Magnepan. I'll let JV go into detail when he gets to them, but I felt that a thin veil had been removed from the tradtional Magnepan sound. The dynamics were also very impressive yet realistic, as JLee suggests. The demonstration only involved 3 pieces of music (orchestral Mahler, piano with orchestra, and drums), so one wants to be careful but the tranparency, sense of low distortion and vividnesss were very very good.
BTW Magnepan used a 3 channel set-up to help widen the useful listening area for the 15 or so seats in the room. I don't know if that helped with the overall impression (frankly I doubt it but who knows?). In any event the Magnepan center speaker is now in production. More importantly, even though Magnepan did one of the nicest demos at the show, the conditions were certainly not as good as one would experience at home.
which Mahler? ... which Orchestra/Conductor?
thanks
Mahler 3, Boulez. I don't recall the orchestra.
Well Jonathan, it's Sunday, the last day of CES and still not a peep out of you on the sound of the 1.7s. For being so excited about them why aren't you letting us know what you think? There have been only a couple of comments here and Stereophool hasn't even mentioned them in their report. Did they not live up to expectations?
I AGREE WITH OTHERS ON YOUR BLOG, YOU WERE EXCITED AND EAGER, SO WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE MAGGIE 1.7'S? NO ONE IS TALKING (CHECKED WITH OTHER SOURCES TOO).
AT $2K PER PAIR, THE 1.7'S COULD BE HUGE BANG FOR THE BUCK WITH THE RIGHT EQPMT. DRIVING THEM, AND JUST POSSIBLY A SLIGHTLY NEW DIRECTION FOR MAGNEPAN WITH APPLICATIONS FOR THEIR BIGGER BETTER MODELS?
Now that you mention it, there has been zero CES show coverage on this site? What's with that? I'd like to know what's new, etc.
Are there any other websites covering the CES/THE 2010? for the RMAF 2009 there were a few websites with amazing quality photos and excellent coverage. This one.....no one seems to be keen.
Try stereophile.com and soundstage.com .
Mark
Audiogon just posted some great coverage!
All pictures and no editorial. I want both!
Maybe it will be a GEC deal. Now that would really po a lot of people.
Audiogon just posted some great coverage!
where ? I couldn't find it
Jonathan's review is up:
http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-mg-17-unqualified-triumph
I am juiced that Magnepan is releasing a replacement for the 1.6. I have always loved the Magnepan sound and the planar-magnetic drivers (now completely quasi-ribbon!). I have always felt that Magnepan has never really done justice to the true beauty of these planar driver and has slapped on cheap crossovers (when I opened my 3.5R crossovers I didn't know whether to laugh or cry) and horrible frames (MDF really??). If Magnepan can address these issues they will have the best speaker under $20k on their hands.
Good news, I read somewhere that they improved the crossover components.
MDF -- I suspect it's a bang-for-the-buck issue, but the engineering issues here are somewhat different than they are in the case of a box speaker. Resonance and acoustical transparency are less important, because you aren't trying to trap the back wave. Mass and rigidity are more important because of the tall, thin frame. You want the enclosure to be thin to avoid diffraction issues, but you want lots of mass. For that reason, MDF may be a better material than plywood or lightweight composites. Some people do replace the frames with wood ones, and I've heard nothing but raves about the Mye stands.
Sam,
"The proof is the putting" NOT the Bill Cosby Jello commercial where he joked "The proof is in the pudding".
BTW, I'm a fellow 1.6QR owner and will upgrade to these in 2010!
-David
I own a pair of 1.6s, which had the crossovers rebuilt with high quality parts.
It is superior to a stock 1.6, and very close in sound quality to my Salk HT3s.
Good news about the new Maggie. I have the 1.6 going on 9 years and they sound fantastic. They never let me down. I also own Vandersteen 3A Sigs another great speaker but much more difficult to set up and get sounding right.
I can't wait to hear the 1.7. Hope you get to review it. Bought my Maggies partly based on your review and others.
I AM going to review it, Billy. This is one I can't pass up.
Jon
I've enjoyed all the postings and comments and have some questions. I heard the 1.6QR for the first time today and fell in love.... My current speakers are 30 years old now and have served me well. I loved the Magneplans 30 years ago but couldn't afford them at the time. My questions are: The sales person told me the price of $1900 dollars for the 1.6QR's. I read here that the new 1.7's are $100 dollars more.... Are the 1.7's on the market currently or was I going to buy an outdated model? Should I wait for the 1.7's? The other question is, I'm reading a lot on power for the Mag's. I certainly don't want to buy a $8000 dollar amp. What I have now, though old now, has again, served me well and still works great. I have a Tandberg 3003A power amp and Onkyo Intergra P3030 preamp. The Tandberg is rated at 150 wps if my memory is correct. Would this be enough amp for the Magneplans? Thanks for all your posts, they are helpful.
Seakite2, you should visit Magnepan's web site and have a look at the FAQ section. It addresses power issues about as well as anyone can without knowing your listening habits and space. The main issue you may have with the Tandberg could be its output current capabilities into a 4-ohm load. The Magnepan's are a fairly easy load at a relatively constant 4-ohms, but they require a lot of current to really sing. If it were me, I'd wait to hear the 1.7's before deciding to buy any "leftover" 1.6QR's that might still be available.
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.
Post new comment