Evaluation of the Magnepan 1.7

[Fred]

Fred, I would be very interested in photos, once you have a chance to post them. Have you tried the Maggies without any toe-in? When I owned Maggies, I slightly preferred them with no toe-in in a room of approximately the same size as yours. OTOH, the Maggies did like to be as far out into the room as was possible, I managed to pull mine out about to the middle of the room; and since i was listening like you in the near-field, the impression of depth was increased in this manner.

Hi Davey,

The position for my Maggies for the longest time has been like that, about in middle of the room, and indeed, it provides the best depth and front to back layering in the soundstage in this position. Early on when I placed them like this, a lot my friends frowned upon it because very few people I know would place speakers almost in the middle of the length of the room. I'm not too concerned about how things look in my listening room, but how they sound, and this is how I like them best.

Check out the Cardas formula for dipoles: http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring

 

[DaveyF]

LOL, Fred that Cardas page has been up for a while now. The video of George listening to his Maggies with his La Luce TT and Wavestream amps is informative. It is amusing to see how his dog seems to be in 7th heaven as well

The page seems to recommend that the typical 1/3rd relationship be adhered to in placing dipole speakers, this would be true IF the room has a true rectangular shape and is larger. However, with the size relationship that Fred and I have and since we have to listen in the near-field, this isn't quite as good as appx. 1/2 into the room.....for depth reproduction that is, just IMHO.

 

[Fred]

First Pictures

Had resize these to make it easier to view.

Anyway, this is the current configuration. I have already removed the Jolida 502 from the stand. It's replacement is also temporary. A power upgrade is in the works.

 

[kach22i]

Glad you asked. My room is small at 12x14. The Maggies stand just a 3 feet off of the back wall and are about 16 inches from the side walls.

Have you tried the center of the tweeter's six feet apart, and the speakers about five feet into the room?

This would place the speakers closer together for a strong center image, and well into the room about 1/3 of the way, not 1/2 the distance as other's have mentioned. Although if it were me, I'd try all suggestions given the time and my back holding up.

I'm glad you are happy with the set-up and the speakers.

Looks like the right size speaker for that room, would not want to go much larger. Could of gotten away with the Mini-Maggie desktop speakers too.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I like the turntable dust cover!

 

[jadis]

I like the turntable dust cover!

Me too, but extreme care to pull the 'cover' straight up and not angled towards the cartridge or a big OUCH would happen.

 

[Gregadd]

Me too, but extreme care to pull the 'cover' straight up and not angled towards the cartridge or a big OUCH would happen.

Been there. Done that.

 

[naturephoto1]

Been there. Done that.

Me to.

Rich

 

[Fred]

LOL, a good Stetson has a place in modern times. It not just out on the range anymore!

 

[Lee]

Check out the Cardas formula for dipoles: http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=26&pagestring

I use the Cardas dipole formula for my 1.6s and it works very well.

 

[johnlewisgrant]

I have discovered Maggies. What didn't I hear these 10 years ago? Toronto, Canada isn't that remote.

Anyhow. The remark here that they caused the user to abandon forever box speakers of all descriptions is now one that I can comprehend completely.

My only problem is this..... I have the MMGs set up in my 20x14x9ft-high livingroom as I write. The sound (coupled with a sub) is utterly sublime.

The point of comparison, in this case, are a pair of Spendor A9s and ProAc Response 1SCs, which I hauled into the living room from elsewhere in the house.

There is no comparison. And it's not the case that I have "ribbon" ears or "maggie" ears. It's certainly true that ones ears do "accomodate" to speakers, such that, obviously, you can get accustomed to a certain type of speaker for certain types of music, and then THAT becomes the "objective truth", so to speak.

But that's exactly the opposite of what happened in my case. I just happened to hear these things; practically by accident as it were, and immediately preferred them over anything and everything I had ever heard. So my ears had to do a 180; and they did.

Now I have all this expensive speaker stuff that must be resigned to the dust bin of speaker technology.

Oh well.

But I have a bigger problem. The shop where I picked up the MMGs also demoed for me the 1.7s and the 3.7s. I must confess--yup it's a confession--I could not discern a palpable difference in mid and high frequency quality. The only obvious distinction was in the bass, and in the admittedly much bigger and more encompassing sound of the larger Maggies.

I'm I wrong in this? I'm I perhaps a little hard of hearing? Are the 1.7 and 3.7 clearly and distinctly (as Descartes puts it) Better in the mids and highs than the MMG????

JG

 

[DonH50]

"Clearly and distinctly" is very subjective... The MMG is a 2-way design with QR tweeter. The 1.7 is a 3-way design with QR panels. The 3.7 is a 3-way with QR mid/bass panels and ribbon tweeter. Larger panels will provide deeper bass, all else equal. You might not have the frequency range (depending on age and/or how much you've abused your ears) to hear the difference in the QR vs. true-ribbon tweeter, and my guess (not having heard them all) is the QR panels in the mid and tweeter in the 1.7 are in fact fairly close to the QR upper-mid/tweeter of the MMG. So, with a short listening session you might not hear a significant difference, and even in longer sessions the differences are likely to be subtle. The larger speakers to my ears present a much larger sound stage and much better/deeper bass, but not a huge difference in mids and above. When I was younger and my hearing extending well above 15 kHz (22 kHz in college) I could clearly hear the difference the ribbon made. At that time, however, there were no QR panels, so the newer QRs may have closed the gap.

Enjoy what you have!

 

[Fred]

...Are the 1.7 and 3.7 clearly and distinctly (as Descartes puts it) Better in the mids and highs than the MMG???JG

Any man that quotes elements of Rene Descartes philosophy in a Magnepan thread obviously needs to sit down with a pair of 20.1's,

 

[DonH50]

The 20's are nice, and I came close to getting them instead of my 3's, but placed in the same (large) room and driven by the same electronics, in all honesty there was very little difference between them to my ears, and to the salesman's as well (who practically had the 20's sold, but he actually suggested trying them in the same main studio room). They are bigger and go a little deeper, but at least back then were not a huge or even large upgrade over my 3a's. Ears of clay, I guess...

Back then, the 3a's were around $2k, the 20's $4k or $5k, and I seriously considered a pair of B&W 801's at ~$5k. About 20 years later, when I started looking again to set up a main system, I had serious sticker shock! In the end I stuck with my old 3a's since they still work, but $12k for a pair of 20.1's didn't seem as outrageous after seeing the price of the new B&W's, Wilsons, et. al.

 

[FrantzM]

Any man that quotes elements of Rene Descartes philosophy in a Magnepan thread obviously needs to sit down with a pair of 20.1's,

I second that !!!

 

[Lee]

I will be getting the 1.7s at the end of the month.

This will be my third pair. I had IIIas and currently 1.6s.

 

[Fred]

I will be getting the 1.7s at the end of the month.

This will be my third pair. I had IIIas and currently 1.6s.

Congrats Lee, you will love them! If I may ask, what type of wait time did your dealer advise you of?

 

[Fred]

Fast forward some 4 years. My, how time has flown by.

Just wanted to re-visit and touch base again. My setup has changed over the years and the system is presently anchored by what I believe to be a most excellent sounding McIntosh MA8000 integrated amp. Power output is 300WPC, so it has plenty of muscle to grab hold of the 1.7's, but also has a sublime delicacy about its presentation and resolves very well. Mates very well with Magnepan's IMHO.

Here's a quick pic of what the room looks like as of today. And yes, the Maggies are still featured prominently.

 

[jadis]

Fast forward some 4 years. My, how time has flown by.

Just wanted to re-visit and touch base again. My setup has changed over the years and the system is presently anchored by what I believe to be a most excellent sounding McIntosh MA8000 integrated amp. Power output is 300WPC, so it has plenty of muscle to grab hold of the 1.7's, but also has a sublime delicacy about its presentation and resolves very well. Mates very well with Magnepan's IMHO.

Here's a quick pic of what the room looks like as of today. And yes, the Maggies are still featured prominently.

View attachment 19695

Beautiful, Fred.

 

[Bruce B]

Awesome looking system. Bet it sounds wonderful. Love the sound of Maggies.