Concentration of wealth

[morricab]

The acoustics at many of the demos were terrible. No different really than an audio show where you hear everybody's flagship speakers sound like crap. I was fortunate to hear the 30.7's in a good room and they were amazing. As Jonathan Valin said, you'd have to spend more than $100,000 to equal them. (The 30.7 for condos is even better, and it isn't the size of a barn door.)

Regarding the quality of the materials, Magnepan is still true to its audiophile roots. They just aren't a good fit with the luxury market, in which components are chosen for reasons other than sound quality. I personally wish they would enter that market, not because I care for it personally, but because its become a crucial source of income for high end manufacturers thanks to the fading of middle class demand. But it is true that companies like Wilson and Magico have a lot of experience with that market and are very good at knowing what the luxury market wants. Fancy-sounding, exotic components, fine furniture finishes -- all the stuff that Magnepan rejects because it doesn't help the sound.

And the 30.7 -- where can a prospective customer even hear it? Nowhere. Same with the 20.7. Worse, these days, the larger dealers just point their rich customers to the mediocre sounding boxes. They won't even play the Maggies, unless the customer asks. And Maggies don't sell unless someone hears them, and realizes how much better they sound than boxes. Why should the dealers care? They get a huge markup on an inflated price for little trouble, and the customer goes away happy, not aware that he could have done better. The dealer who sells Maggies effectively is someone who cares enough about the sound to demonstrate it.

When I was into planars (for quite a long time...still like them but don't own them anymore) I was never into Maggies. Why? There were simply much better sounding planars out there to be listened to (and no Martin Logan was not one of them). Apogee, Acoustat and my old STAX speakers were a lot better sounding...period. Now, I haven't heard this 30.7 but I have heard at length the 3.6, 3.7 and 20.7 as well as a bunch of the older models (1.5, 1.6, 2.5r, MMG etc.). Still, I guess this 30.7 is a lot of speaker for the money and probably a reasonable value in that price class. The new kid planar on the block, Alsyvox, is phenomenal sounding and astoundingly priced.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I was surprised more 20.X owners didn’t upgrade to the 30.7. Many 20.X owners use a subwoofer system of some kind, I believe.

My theory was that the greater low-frequency extension of the 30.7 might make it more difficult to integrate with a subwoofer system, and that the sonic cost/benefit analysis of perhaps better midrange (or whatever advantage) of the 30.7 versus more difficult low-frequency integration of the 30.7 didn’t incline people to risk upsetting an existing and happy 20.X + subwoofer system situation.

I have always wished Magnepan would spend more money on building a more solid speaker structure, and increase the price by a proportional amount. The argument against flimsy wood is that a more enert structure might change the sound of the speaker.

My reply is: “Good! I don’t want to listen to flimsy wood. Let them make the speaker frame out of heavy, inert resin (like the Martin-Logan Neolith) and then retune the crossover or whatever to achieve a higher-resolution and less vibration-induced version of the original wood-framed sound.”

 

[Al M.]

When I was into planars (for quite a long time...still like them but don't own them anymore) I was never into Maggies. Why? There were simply much better sounding planars out there to be listened to (and no Martin Logan was not one of them). Apogee, Acoustat and my old STAX speakers were a lot better sounding...period.

Much better sounding in which way?

 

[josh358]

Different strokes for different folks, but IMHO you are transmitting the wrong idea about Wilsons. As you say we do not want to have a physical copy of the sound wave, but properly amplifiied Wilson's recreate pretty well orchestral and instrumental music. The way they manage to recreate the layers and tonal intensity of a full orchestra, with a proper balance of detail, focusing and diffusion are one of their strong points. BTW, this is my onw opinion, not a quote of someone who put it once ...

I just thought "a nice hifi sound" was a good way of expressing my own experience -- that I like the sound, but it doesn't convince me the way a planar line source can. I think these measurements, from Stereophile's review, are part of the reason:

It's tipped up in the midbass and treble, which for accurate reproduction of two-channel stereo should exhibit a declining curve. At the same time, it's depressed in the presence range.

Now look at what happens to the in-room response:

This is where the "nice hifi sound" comes from.

As I said, I like the sound of the Wilsons -- they just don't sound real to me on acoustical instruments, as in the sense that there's an orchestra out there.

 

[morricab]

Much better sounding in which way?

Dynamics, transparency and coherence.

 

[josh358]

I was surprised more 20.X owners didn’t upgrade to the 30.7. Many 20.X owners use a subwoofer system of some kind, I believe.

My theory was that the greater low-frequency extension of the 30.7 might make it more difficult to integrate with a subwoofer system, and that the sonic cost/benefit analysis of perhaps better midrange (or whatever advantage) of the 30.7 versus more difficult low-frequency integration of the 30.7 didn’t incline people to risk upsetting an existing and happy 20.X + subwoofer system situation.

I have always wished Magnepan would spend more money on building a more solid speaker structure, and increase the price by a proportional amount. The argument against flimsy wood is that a more enert structure might change the sound of the speaker.

My reply is: “Good! I don’t want to listen to flimsy wood. Let them make the speaker frame out of heavy, inert resin (like the Martin-Logan Neolith) and then retune the crossover or whatever to achieve a higher-resolution and less vibration-induced version of the original wood-framed sound.”

I remember reading years ago Jim Winey responding to a reporter's question about baffle materials that yes, metal would be better, but it would be too expensive. But that was years ago. Their products are designed for maximum bang for the buck, which suits the fading middle class market but not the high end market where the money is now. Though the cost-no-object 30.7 does use an aluminum frame (the bass panels, not sure about the midrange/tweeter).

I suspect the reason that more 20.7 owners didn't upgrade to the 30.7 is that it's so damn big. That and the incremental cost. (Interestingly, they had an uptick in 20.7 sale -- the halo effect they were after. I imagine that people who liked the sound of the 30.7 but wanted something more practical decided to move one step down in the line.)

 

[microstrip]

(...) My reply is “good! I don’t want to listen to flimsy wood. Let them make the speaker frame out of heavy, inert resin (like the Martin-Logan Neolith) and then retune the crossover or whatever to achieve a higher-resolution version of the original wood-framed sound.”

A magnetic planar speaker is intrinsically rigid and heavy as it has to support the heavy magnetic structure - probably we do not listen to flimsy wood in their speakers unless we listen with our eyes ... BTW, these panels are really heavy - over 400 lbs total shipping weight.

My only aesthetic objections, not functional, are the horrible looking symmetric feet and the blue frame with white cloth shown in their demos - IMHO it is difficult to imagine worst colors to persuade people they are difficult to integrate in a room. Even the old classical picture of oak framed Magnepan with a ficus tree looks bad with the blue frames!

 

[josh358]

A magnetic planar speaker is intrinsically rigid and heavy as it has to support the heavy magnetic structure - probably we do not listen to flimsy wood in their speakers unless we listen with our eyes ... BTW, these panels are really heavy - over 400 lbs total shipping weight.

My only aesthetic objections, not functional, are the horrible looking symmetric feet and the blue frame with white cloth shown in their demos - IMHO it is difficult to imagine worst colors to persuade people they are difficult to integrate in a room. Even the old classical picture of oak framed Magnepan with a ficus tree looks bad with the blue frames!

Heh, I liked the blue. But it wasn't actually a production color, those are more traditional. The feet were because their newer base wouldn't work with the speaker. But I think you're right that they could have done better with the feet. I like the idea of a weighted triangular base on the rear myself, something that would disappear from the front.

A lot of people say the Maggie design looks dated, very 1980's.

 

[microstrip]

I just thought "a nice hifi sound" was a good way of expressing my own experience -- that I like the sound, but it doesn't convince me the way a planar line source can. I think these measurements, from Stereophile's review, are part of the reason:
View attachment 60474
It's tipped up in the midbass and treble, which for accurate reproduction of two-channel stereo should exhibit a declining curve. At the same time, it's depressed in the presence range.

Now look at what happens to the in-room response:
View attachment 60476
This is where the "nice hifi sound" comes from.

As I said, I like the sound of the Wilsons -- they just don't sound real to me on acoustical instruments, as in the sense that there's an orchestra out there.

Sorry, measurements in a discussion about Magneplanar speakers? You must be joking!

 

[josh358]

Sorry, measurements in a discussion about Magneplanar speakers? You must be joking!

Heh, well, you might be surprised. Stereophile's measurements of planars are just plain wrong, e.g., they measure the LF response in the near field which you just can't do with a dipole, you'll see an absurdly rising bass response (see the interesting letters appended to their 3.6 review -- https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-magneplanar-mg36r-loudspeaker-more-comments). Then they try measuring the waterfall, and again, you can't do that in a regular room with a line source, because you can't gate out the reflections. In that case, the way to measure the waterfall is to put them on a tower or in an anechoic chamber, or just measure them up close, in which case the waterfall becomes excellent.

Finally, you can really only get a sense of a planar's frequency response by measuring in a room, because of the way they interact. You'd see a speaker that's superbly behaved, owing to its essentially perfect dispersion and the fact that dipoles don't excite the lateral and vertical axial room modes. So if you compare (properly made) on-axis measurements between a dipole and an omni, they could be identical and the dipole woofer would be much flatter in an actual room, accounting for the naturalism of planar bass.

The misleading measurements are one of the reasons Magnepan is now reluctant to submit speakers to Stereophile for review. Too many people "listen with their eyes" without understanding the limitations of the measurements (even though John Atkinson discusses some of them in the notes).

(BTW, I've seen properly made measurements of the 30.7 and your jaw would drop.)