Magneplanar 1.7 Loudspeaker (TAS 205)
Get Out The Mastercard!
August 17th, 2010 -- by Jonathan ValinSource: The Absolute Sound
Not too long ago I proposed an article to our Editor in Chief, Mr. Harley, to be called “What Would You Really Buy?” By this I did not mean what would our reviewers buy if they had an unlimited Rubidium Mastercard, but what they could actually afford with their own meager funds. Without a question or a doubt, the speaker I’m about to review is the one I’d opt for—and (unless it’s been replaced by something even better from Magnepan) will be the one I do opt for when the Magico M5s and Soulution 700s stop showing up at my door and I’m finally turned out to pasture.
The $1995 Magneplanar 1.7 boxless, floorstanding, dipolar (they radiate equal sonic energy front and back), quasi-ribbon loudspeaker—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 has been a smashing success. I have now listened to the 1.7s for almost four months, 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 (although see my review of the Nola Baby Grand References in this issue for a notable exception.) Yes, Maggie’s true ribbon is a marvel of speed, resolution, low distortion, and extension, and, yes, it was and remains superior in those regards 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, let me explain. In a nutshell the incredibly lightweight foil of a true ribbon is the driver—it simultaneously conducts the signal and vibrates to turn 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 panel 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 latticework 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 moving 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 loudspeaker 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.)
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
I'm sure you get this sort of thing a lot, and find it lame; but I would just like your opinion.
I have a pair of Merlin VSM SE (early ones) with the Superbam. I like them a lot for everything that they do so well, but they do not give me the 'realism' that I heard from a pair of 1.6s recently (at a local store called HiFi Centre). They dismiss Maggies as 'fun', and try to sell you on the Active concept (but that's another story).
My room dimensions are 11 X 16 X 8, and speakers have to be placed no further than 2 feet from the back wall and 18 to 20 inches from the side walls. Placement has to be on the short wall, so this puts the centre of the speakers about 7 feet apart. I listen mostly to vocal and acoustic music, and would like to listen to more of my many classical LPs. The Merlins work very well in this setting, but not great on large-scale classical music. I cannot audition to the Maggies in my room, though the room they used at the store was actually smaller, and the amp less powerful than mine. Am I nuts to consider placing 1.7s in this room and expecting them to compete with the Merlins. My amp is an Accuphase A30 (60 watts into 4 ohms). I don't listen to music very loud.
Thanks for any advice you can provide.
bbreslin,
Are you nuts to try to shoe-horn Maggies into your smallish room? Well...maybe, although Japanese audiophiles listen to giant horn systems in rooms smaller than yours. The only real way to find out is to try the 1.7s in your room and see if you can live with the sound. However you say you cannot audition them in your home. I'm not sure why this is the case, but you COULD buy them and then return them in a week if you were dissatisfied, couldn't you? (If your hi-fi dealer doesn't go for that you need to find another hi-fi dealer or, perhaps, offer to pay this one a nominal "re-stocking" fee if you return the 1.7s.) You said the room at the store you heard them in was smaller than your room. You apparently liked the sound there, which bodes well and so do your listening biases. You're not going to get all the stereo separation that you'd get in a larger room (especially along the short wall), and putting them so close to the backwall will boost bass (which may not be a bad thing with the 1.7s, if the boost doesn't also trigger room modes).
Jon
Hi Jonathan! Would these pair well with the Bel Canto Ref 1000's? Any pros and cons with using these with ICE amps? Thanks in advance!
Nino
Mr. Valin...It sounds like you like the new Maggies but then again it doesn't. I just read your review from TAS and posted here and I'm scratching my head. I seem to recall that once upon a time that you said that you had an assignment to name several systems at different price points...if it wasn't you my apologies. Your conclusion is that you swapped out all the equipment EXCEPT the 1.6's. You indicated that spending more on another speaker was not necessary, it was the associated equipment that made the difference. Maybe I salute you for balance in your new review or not... depends on the day. Sound is a personal experience and heaven knows I've come away since my Marantz 2215 and JBL L-100's of 1970. Since I've had everything from AR-11's to many of the Martin-Logans to the Dunlavy IV's and lots and lots of others. Added to that an equal assortment of mainstream and esoteric equipment. Some not bad, some well not so good. Almost bought the Wilson Sophia, but their price rises more than the cost of living so I have been put in the dust on that one, besides to me, IMHO, I have heard all their line...good friends with my dealer and they have the same...to my ears..sonic signature. So I about gave up on finding the holy grail of the absolute sound. Revelation when completely by random...yes I've been methodical but that only takes you so far...I picked up the 1.6's and an Audio Research 150.2 amp, and a Monarchy Audio NM-24 using the tube side. Now I've heard symphony orchestras from Boston with Osawa to San Francisco with MTT including the St. Louis when it was under Slatkin. So I've heard a lot of music in a number of venues, including musicals, small ensembles and the like...even big band when Buddy Rich was alive. I could have gone a bit more esoteric or more main stream. This is a motley combination to be sure but when I fired it up. For me and me alone...The Absolute Sound...or as close as I would ever get. Added a Hsu Research sub and I was in business. Point, I've heard some of the best...read most expensive gear...and I found in my 40 year quest that no system has given me goose bumps. Until now. If the Maggies are not perfect, well I don't think about it...AT ALL. Not the case except with my EPOS 22's which were good but hardly goose bumps. Yes I had a room of large dimensions, and the 150.2 has enough to drive them, but golly, I just didn't hear my system. I heard music. 40 years and finally I was sucked into the music. So the 1.7's sound like a worthy successor to the 1.6's but the tone of the review seemed to be they are good BUT. At their price point and so forth. I have spend 3 or 4 times as money on other systems and did not get 20% of what I've come to love. Why? Because all my comparisons weren't dependent on $$$ but rather lots of time listening to LIVE music. Point is why does price always have to rear its ugly head? Why do I have to hear that "at that price point"? Yes, it is wonderful that these cost less than other speakers but of the astronomical speakers that dissect the sound versus goose bumps, well I've stated my preference and hang the price. I've got a seat at Powell Symphony Hall. If the 1.7's give me a couple rows closer, so much the better, but keep the goose bumps.
Now my sadness. Everything seems to be based on how many $$$ you could spend versus what can you get that allows you to sit down and forget the damn system.
OldAudiophile,
I have no idea how anyone could read the 1.7 review and conclude that it "sounds like [I] like the new Maggies but then again it doesn't."
Yes, I more than like the new Maggies; I love them. But if you want me to say, as you obviously do (why I don't know), that spending a lot more money doesn't buy you more realistic sound I can't do it. What I can say is that spending a lot more money MAY not buy you better sound. It all depends on what you buy for that money.
JV
Mr Valin, I apologize that you took my rant in the spirit that it was not intended to convey. I go back to the original issues of Stereophile by J. Gordon Holt...I seem to remember ca. 1963? He was a character but had a point. That since the 1980's the quest for sound has gone the direction of individual tastes rather than the original model for your magazine as outlined by TAS founder Harry Pearson. That absolute sound was live sound and that was the ultimate for which we should seek. It seems that although speakers reproduce sound, I just wanted for one of the speakers, whether $100 or $68,000 (the most expensive I've heard) to give those goosebumps rather than doing an excellent job of analyzing the sound. In my quest...and I speak for no other,...this...1.6 or 1.7 Maggie...is the closest I've found given the original premise. I don't have that fancy Mastercard, but did once and yet FOR ME and again, no one else, this is my choice. I've said too much already I fear, but I thank you for your reply and will continue to follow your writing.
Hi Jon, It sounds to me as if you like the new Maggies. I was reading your comments about using tube amps with these. I have an old Music Reference RM9 Mk.I using 8 EL34s at 100wpc, and was wondering about whether there was enough power for these new Maggies? I could possibly retube using 6550's to obtain round 125WPC tops. (BTW: Your RCA Bible still sits upon my coffee table and it's helped me immensely over the years in collecting Shaded Dogs.)
fortherecord,
As I said in the review, Maggies are peculiar beasts in that they generally like to be played louder but not so much louder that they tip over into distortion. Whether you can reach the 1.7's volume-level "sweet spot" with 100-125Wpc tube amps will depend on the size of your room, the kind of music you listen to, and the average levels you typically listen to that music at. There would certainly be no harm in trying out your Music References, and tubes will give you some of the body that solid-state lacks.
Jon
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you very much for a wonderful review.
I am currently contemplating on changing my 7.2 system of box speakers with one based on Magnepan 1.7.
The system I am thinking is composed Magnepan 1.7 for front left and front right, CC3 for center speaker, and MMG for two rears. I will still be using my two old subwoofers with the system.
I am currently using a Cinenova Grande as my power amp that can output 300W per channel on 8 ohms and 600W on 4 ohms on 7 channels. I think this amplifier is a match for the magnepans.
I listen to all sorts of music with about 40% rock/pop, 40% classical, and 20% jazz plus others. I normally listen to my rock collection (Led Zeppelin, Allman Brothers, Deep purple, 70's type of rock) at about 89 DB (Radio Shack SPL C - Weighted) . I have read that the Maggies do render classical music and pop music really well.
I wonder if you can help me out on questions below.
1. Is the 5.1 magnepan system describe above a good one for both music and home theather use, music being the priority?
My listening room is 4 meters by 6 meters by 2.5 meters (height)
2. Can you suggest a better magnepan system at a similar price point as the one describe above?
2. Your article seems to indicate that the Maggies can do 100 DB well. As I listen of a lot of rock music I like to know if the maggies are good for rock music at 90 DB?
I am asking these questions because I can not audition these speakers. We do not have a dealer in our area and have to buy it without listening to it before hand.
Thanks again for an insightful article and for the help.
Kind regards,
rpthecoder
rp,
To answer your questions:
1) Yes, the 5.1 system you propose would be excellent for music and home theater.
2) No. I don't think you can improve on this without spending a good deal more money. This is a very sensible music/surround system that will sound great.
3) Yes, the Maggies can do rock music at 90dB SPL.
Jon
My room has 12 ft ceiling and is about 12' by 24';I play mostly Rock and Jazz and Female vovals such as Dianne Krell.
I have a Vincent v-60 tube int amp.How would the Maggies sound with the room and equipment
You have a pretty good sized room, and the Vincent, good as it is, might not have enough power for the 1.7s in such a space. Then again, it depends on how loud you typically listen.
I suspect a true ribbon / quasi ribbon 3.7 in not too long ;-)
I appreciate your comments about the affordability of these speakers. What equipment would you mate these to if you had to buy it yourself? I.e. best bang for the buck to drive these speakers?
frank,
Since I am saving so much money on the speakers, I would splurge on the electronics. In Issue 208, I will recommend two systems at around $15k and $40k based on the Maggie 1.7s and VERY good electronics--that's how good I think these speakers are.
Jon
I have a pair of Maggie 12s which took the room of a pair of Acoustic Energy AE1s. I also used a pair of Enter woofers.
I love the sound of the Maggies and I was planning to go to the 1.6s, now 1.7s. However, I have noted that whereas the AE1s really has incredible imaging and the ability to really show the difference between upstream components, the Maggie tends to homogenize the sound, since the Maggie sound overwhelms a lot of the differences.
Not that I complain. I love the livelikeness of the Maggies, how they can place a performer in your room, but it does worry me about a bit that this is a distortion of sorts. Just like my ARC amp distorts as well (note that I have both an ARC and an Acoustic Reality amp on hand to drive the main speakers).
Regards
Tony
Having had Maggies in and out of my systems since 1975 (!), I am very pleased with your comments on the new 1.7s. I last bought a set of MMGs on a whim and still consider them among the most satisfying listening gear I've ever had. Gets better. For a long time while my new house was being built I lived in a rental and ran them off of a 1980ish NAD 7020 (20wpc) receiver. That worked just fine in a smallish living room, and I never really needed more power. But all Maggies have a sweet range of dynamic linearity due to the very nature of planar drivers and the inverse square law of the magnetic field driving them - double the distance from the diaphragm to the magnet and you have 1/4 the magnetic field. Pretty simple when you think about it.
I've been toying with the idea of building a 'record player' (no multimedia, internet connected downloads - have a Sonos for that) with a pair of 1.6s (now 1.7s) an integrated amp, and a nice new turntable & cart. In a perfect world the integrated amp would have a tube somewhere and a built-in phono section, and about 100WPC and cost under $2K. That would leave me about $2K for the table and cart. What would you recommend for those components to go with the 1.7s?
panzr,
I would consider the $1995 Vincent SV-236 MkII. It doesn't have a phonostage but it meets all your other specs (it has a tube preamp and 150Wpc solid-state amp). For $1545, the SOTA Comet comes complete with S301 tonearm and a Dynavector 10x5 cartridge. For $2k, the Clearaudio Concept comes with the Verify arm and the Clearaudio Concept mc cartridge. Both have been highly recommended by TAS reviewers. If you opt for the SOTA, you can put the money you save toward an outboard phonostage, such as the $549 Simaudio Moon LP3.
JV
Hi Jonathan! Would these pair well with the Bel Canto Ref 1000's? Any pros and cons with using these with ICE amps? Thanks in advance!
Nino
Reading the many superlatives with, relatively, small caveats I would have to guess this speaker is a superior transducer to many others regardless of if they are planar, dynamic, or even priced reasonably above the $2K price. However, I have just got to ask how you would imagine they compare to another planar overachiever, the Emminent Technology LFT-8B? When I was young I fell in love with the Heil Air Motion Transformer used in ESS AMT 1Bs. As I got older I realized quite a bit of the mid/high magic was being obscurred by the not so elegant matching to the 12" Bextrene woofers. I then went to the Emminent Tech speakers and have been extremely pleased ever since. Now, I wonder how much the bar could be raised at about that same price point with these Maggies if you'd be so kind as to venture your opinion.
jw,
I'm unable to make a comparison between the Magnepan 1.7s and the Eminent Technology speakers, since I haven't had the LFT-8Bs in my system.
JV
Thanks for a great review. I've been a Magnepan owner since 1978, beginning with a pair of MG1a's, a Nakamichi RX202 tape deck, and a Threshold amp. For many years I've been listening to a pair of circa 1988 MG-3A's. Three years ago I sent them back to the factory and had them refurbished. I love the way these Maggies sound, but I would enjoy hearing your opinion about moving from the 3A's to the 1.7's. I've included these speakers in a mixed music listening and home theater environment, pairing them with Maggie center and surrounds, a Velodyne sub and a Denon receiver. What do you think would be the greatest change I would notice? What things would you consider if you were me?
Many thanks.
I, too have lived with a pair of (now heavily modified) 3As since 1987. I have started looking for an upgrade, but I'm in doubt about the 3.6. Will the 1.7 be "sufficient", due to the recent development and improvements both to frame and planar technology? I know this is an impossible question to answer since it's all about taste, but will the 1.7 offer a (significant) improvement in sound reproduction over the 3As in general?
BTW I, too, have a small room (L/W/H being 24x12x7,5 feet). To get good-to-great sound I have used carefully selected acoustic treatment throughout the room and nearfield listening.
Hi Jonathan,
Thank you very much JV, This post is late as I have been going to conferences in the last 2 weeks. I really appreciate your assistance on this as I can buy these speakers without listening to it before hand. I am looking forward to your article on the 14K system.
cheers,
ric
Hello Jon,
I will soon be receiving a pair of Magnepan 1.7s and I've been wondering what tweaks are truly useful. Have you experimented with the Mye (or similar) stands? What about "razoring" - I don't know what that is and I shiver just to think about it! :) Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Jonathan:
After reading the overwhelmingly positive reviews of Magnepan speakers over the years, I'm at that point where i may be taking the plunge and picking up a pair. I read your reviews and comments on the new maggies (1.7 and 3.7), and that's what really put my over the edge towards buying them. That, and my Magico savings went towards an addition off the back of my house.
My one concern is their power consumption and whether or not my amp can properly drive them. I have an original Marantz Model 8b stereo amp. As i'm sure you're well aware, its rated at 35 wpc. So my question is: do you think this amp will be able to properly drive a pair of, say, 1.7's? And if not the 1.7s, do you think this amp would pair better with a set of MMGs or MG-12s, with a separate sub to handle the lows.
My system, save for the amp, is pretty modest......I'm working on a budget. My preamp is a emotiva USP-1, which i picked up for cheap after i was having some issues with my Mac MX-110 preamp/tuner. I have an NAD cd player and a Rega P1 turntable. I jump back and forth between Aperion 6b bookshelf speakers, and B&W 804s.
Obvioulsy, this is an amp i'd like to keep around. It still velvety warm (as i call it), open, and detailed........plus, it has a classic coolness that i'd find hard to part with. I've never had an issue with power on any of the speakers i've hooked it up to. The amp stays clean as loud as i can take it. I have a small 12 x 12 listening room.
Any thoughts would be warmly welcomed. Thanks!
-Adam