Magnepan 3.7's versus 20.1's?

Thanks for the update Kenklien1!

The integration of the tweeter and the speed of the panels of the 3.7 are better to my ears than the 20.1, although still one of the best out there.
Mr Diller confirmed last week that 20.7s are shipping and that the mid range panel is superior to the midrange panel used in the 3.7. This is why J. Valin's review indicated the 20.7's superior transparency. Because of cost, it is not possible to install a similar midrange panel and keep the same cost for the 3.7. Mr Diller also indicated that the 20.7 is more efficient than my current 1.7s so my current 300/ch amp will be just fine with 20.7s.

Houston Reef, you can do it, but it will be tight. You'll probably want to run them tweeters out to keep the bass panels off the wall. Figure you'll want the tweeters about 8' apart and the speakers should be 2' from the side walls, you have just enough room to do that tweeters out. The only real risk here is that a small room can boost the bass. Then you'd have to EQ it back down.

I heard 20.7s werent dropping til june.

Called Magnepan today and asked when 20.7's would most likely hit showroom floors; answer, approx. one more month...

"Available" but not sure a dealer actually has these yet... Aynone know of an actual Magnepan dealer that has a set of 20.7's?

20.7 is now available. Anyone heard it?

Do you think a room with 12ft wide suitable for 3.7

Anyone can recommend an ideal sub for the 3.7 as I'm used to the Wilson Audio Puppy bass. Very low and dynamic and how do I connect it to my Goldmund Telos 3.9? Like the speaker but really need a sub to go down to 20hz.

I have a 20X15X9' room. Back wall opens to entrance hall of house via 8 foot wide portal so room may be "bigger" in that sense.

MG20's work well I find.

I prefer tweeters on outside and have good central imaging with msuicians hanging in space (not attached to speakers). Depending on recording I can hear sounds lateral (ie "outside") the speakers.

Speakers generally "disappear".

15' is fine povided you place the tweeters inside. My 3.5s performed well in my listening room with about the same width. Currently, I have the 20.1 in the same room without any problems.

15' sounds like a solid estimate on the minimum width. Does it make sense that the 20's would require greater room space than the 3's since they are so much larger? Maybe some of our 20.1 owners can comment.

Stickman,
I have 3.7's in a room that is 15.5' x 19.' The speakers are along the short wall, about 6' out from the front wall. Tweeters to the inside. What is surprising to me is that the 3.7's integrate with the room much better than the 1.6's did. I'm actually considering removing some of my room treatments. Because of the size of the speakers, I can't get more than 48" from inside edge to inside edge. My guess is that 15' is likely to be close to the minimum width for the 3.7's. I have no experience with the 20.1's

Assuming a 'shoe-box' shape, What is the smallest room dimensions in which the 20.1's and 3.7's will work well?

20.7 is now official:

http://www.avguide.com/blog/first-listen-magnepan-s-new-flagship-207-loudspeaker

the 20.7's are coming. the 3.7's are way more cohesive than the 20.1's.

Ordering 3.7's Monday,trading 1.7's. I have auditioned 20.1's they are great but too large for my listening room and not in my budget. I also heard rumor that the 20.7 will be out shortly.

My 3.7 s now have a few hundred hours and the bass panel is kicking in with a lot more force and presence.

Mrschret,
Excellent! When you get them set up, leave the room for the first two hours. Mine sounded pretty bad right out of the box, but sounded respectable after two hours and much better after 6. They continue to improve, but I'm guessing the bass panels need a lot more time. Enjoy!

Mrschret,
I was told 2-3 weeks was the wait when I ordered mine. I heard back right away that they were out of dark cherry, and that they expected a new shipment within a week. There were no surprises, and the dealer made sure and let me know when Magnepan got the new shipment. The dark cherry arrived on schedule, and the speakers went into production immediately. They shipped on the promised date. I had an update on the status at least once a week.
I agree that you are due a customer satisfaction adjustment. I would guess someone at the dealer or Magnepan dropped the ball on getting your order into the system.
Your sales person really should have stayed on top of this. I get tired of hearing brick and mortar shops whine when they fail to provide reasonable customer service.
The upside is that these are just wonderful speakers. I think you will be pleased once you have them.

Ok, cancel the last rave. I just got the call. The 3.7's have landed!! I should have them today or tomorrow. Whew.

My dealer is pretty upset about this and has called Magnepan. That's where the 2 to 3 more weeks came from. They promised to stay on top of it with repeated calls to them. they are in agreement that this type of wait is rather ridiculous. We're building a speaker here not a house. I don't think I ordered anything too odd for it to be trouble. Mine will be black oak with gray panels. My next step is to start asking for compensation for the extra long wait.

The issue may be the aluminum rails. The wood rails are the same as the 3.6s, but the aluminum sides are new to the 3.7. I got my cherry 3.7s in 3/11 after ordering in 1/11. The dealer did not get his aluminum store demos until late 5/11 due to delays in the aluminum manufacture.

Mrscgret,
Something is not adding up here on delivery of your 3.7's. I ordered mine on Nov 7th and took delivery on Dec 9th. They were held up an extra week because they ran out of dark cherry for a week. I'd be demanding some answers from the dealer and placing a call to Magnepan. 3 months is outrageous!

I know what you mean about the wait. As I recall, the 1.7's were delayed for a while because their milling machine went down. The 3.7's if I remember correctly started shipping not long after their introduction at CES. The Mini Maggies took two years, but that was because they had to catch up on the .7's first. I'm thinking that a call to the factory makes sense, before everyone leaves for the holidays. The may be able to give you an idea of when they'll ship.

That would be me Josh358. Evidently my local dealer knew a little more then he did. And his claim was that he got it from Lyric and from a direct call to Magnepan.things It made no sense that my store and others that I've seen on here were selling their 20.1 demos. My dealer has been dealing with Magnepan for over 30 years. That being said, the problem now lies in that I'm still waiting for my 3.7's. It has been over 3 months and I was just told that it could be a few more weeks. It is understandable that these are made mostly by hand and there is great care and pride taken in each pair. But, according to said dealer, the word is that things are not running quite as smoothly at the factory as they should be. I'm almost tempted to just drop the 3.7's and pre order the 20.7 but I might be waiting for them till 2013.

doesn't matter who guessed what; what matters is saving up enough dinero to buy the 20.7s.

Yep. However, it was never a question of whether it would happen but whether it would happen this year, and initially even Magnepan didn't know, because they didn't know how long it would take to improve the 20.1.

Still, who was it whose dealer told him it was coming several months ago? And someone else said no, it was going to be a new Tympani? He's officially the winner of that debate, heh.

The 20.7 has been given a mini review by JH on the TAS website. Expect an introduction at CES 1/12. For those who suggested it wouldn't happen, it did.

S_c123, there's someone on the Planar Asylum who's putting together a system similar to yours, Tympani 1-D bass panels + MG IIIA's. I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that you've gotten such good results. I'm curious though -- why did you combine the III's with the IV's, which already have a dedicated mid and a ribbon? Are you crossing over lower down for a 4-way, e.g., at 80 or 100 Hz?

I have a pair of IVA's myself, and plan to run them with the mid/tweeter panel separate because of space limitations. But the crossover is higher, about 300 Hz. I'm also planning to replace the midrange of the IVA's with BG Neo-8's, which are push-pull quasi-ribbon planars. Satie on the Planar Asylum has done this with his IV's and says the quality is comparable to the 20.1's.

The 3.7 lost its bi-amp capability because of the new crossover design, which is apparently first order. If it's like the 1.7's, it's also a series crossover. You could of course go inside the speaker . . .

I don't like the concept of non bi-amp capability as designed in 3.7. The Magie is believed to sound best with bi-amplification especially the true ribbon is perfectly matched with class A amp. The separated bass panel from mid/tweeter is a good concept. I am still wonder, even the 20.1 would be comparable with the combined Tympani IV/MGIII which I currently use.

Interesting in knowing that the new Tympani would be available. I am using Tympani IV bass panel with MGIII driven by Threshold S500 for LP and T200 for HP with Bryston 10B STD and CAT SL1 Sig. MK2 in my 6x8 m (2.8m height) room; the sound stage is so big. Image is fantastic.
After having my first MGIII for more than 15 years, I am still enjoying to listen the Magie everyday. Now I have two pairs of MGIII, one pair of 1.6 that need to be fixed for the buzzes due to losing glue. However, the combined Tympani/MGIII system is best matching so far.

New Tympani, that would be awesome, I might actually open up the strong box for those.

New Tympani's would be absolutely incredible!!!!

There's no sign that the 20.1 is going to be updated in the near future. There are rumors about an anniversary edition Tympani but that's another story ...

I would think this is simple. The 3.7s are updated and the 20.1s probably will be soon, so for now there are a couple of things the 3.7 *might* do a tad better - but the main quality that the 20.1s have is the push-pull force on the ribbon and quasi-ribbon, so dynamics are a lot better (assuming proper amplification).

Also, they removed the external x-over on 3.7, so I think (I'm about to start a thread on this) that the active bi-amp option is out with 3.7, while it is still available on 20.1, and active bi-amp will generally add to the more dynamic part of the equation for 20.1.

If (this is a big if) you play a test tone, or a single singer who sings in a range not used by the ribbon, and if that singer doesn't have a lot of dynamic swings, then perhaps the new quasi-ribbon will for today out-do the 20.1 which will most probably be updated soon with the quasi ribbon that started on the 1.7. Also, maybe not! Because the push-pull might make the old quasi better sounding than the new one as implemented in the 3.7/1.7. All conjecture.

Dsper, I think the 3.7's will do fine in your room.

FWIW, my local and longtime Maggie dealer, when I asked him this very same question on my last visit, indicated that he did think the 3.7 competed with the 20.1 in certain ways (and was a worthwhile improvement from the 3.6, a speaker I greatly admired). But whatever he may have specifically elaborated I can't recall exactly anymore (though I seem to think it had something to do with the midrange), and I haven't auditioned them yet (he offered but I didn't have the time then). Sorry, great help, I know! (Thanks to Gmorris for pointing out the lack of biampability, I hadn't realized this.)

Do the 20.1's still need a subwoofer or do they extend beyond their rated 25Hz bottom end?

Thanks for the input Kirby, Tmsorosk & Gmorris - nice to see this thread get back on track with some actual comparisons!

Good callout on bi-wire capability.

Interestingly, this debate is ongoing also on Audioasylum.com. Several posters accepted HP’s words as gospel. I was at that point as a new enthusiast in the so called “High End Audio” in 1976. In fact my first high end system mostly comprised of components on HP’s recommended list. To wit: ARC D76A, ARC SP3, Magnepan MG2, Kenwood KD500 with AT605 footers, Black Widow arm/Signet cartridge. I have a great deal of respect for HP, as he is one of the pioneers in developing the vocabulary of descriptive terms used to characterize the performance of audio systems. I agree with HP on many occasions, but HP has his own preferences and often times I disagree with his assessments of components.

In terms of the debate between the 3.7s and 20.1, I am not in a position to make a definitive comparison in the same system. I have heard the 3.7s separately and recently I purchased the 20.1s. Currently I have both the 3.5s and 20.1s in my music room. In the 20.1s, both the mid (quasi ribbon) and bass (planar-magnetic) panels are push-pull (magnets on both sides of the Mylar screen. Thus in principle, the 20.1s should have better transient response and definition than the 3.7 quasi ribbon mid and bass sections with magnets on a single side of the Mylar. Also, the 20.1s have a substantially more massive frame than the 3.7s. There is no comparison in terms of construction between the two speakers, which is reflected in the cost differential. The 3.7s are excellent speakers but the 20.1s are magical: they are a music lover’s dream. In my estimate, one of the major drawbacks of the 3.7s is that they cannot be bi-wired or bi-amped without major internal modifications. I am curious as to why Magnepan eliminated the eternal x-over box. Was the decision based on performance or the need to maintain a certain price point?

The 20.1 gets my vote for best panel .

I just had an opportunity to hear the 1.7, 3.7, and 20.1 in a store here in Evanston IL. I thought that the 1.7 was more coherent sounding than the 3.7 driven by the same electronics. The 20.1 was on a different level entirely. The rooms were sized about the same (15 x 20 or so). The 20.1s sounded real with proper extension and scale. The 3.7 seemed pinched and tight. Of course, i don't know how long any of these speakers had been played. I assume the 20.1 was well broken in and the 3.7 quite new so that may have been a factor.

I expected the 20.1 to sound better than the other two but the 1.7 was a real treat.

I am 9 feet from my 3.7s and it is fine. Definitely front row seats.

Dsper, I don't think you should rule out the 3.7's based on concerns about room size. The ideal is always to have an in home audition, but that isn't always possible. You ought to be able to get an in store audition with a room that is at least a similar width, and that should give you some idea. Personally, I find I like speakers closer together than most people do. My 1.6's are 49" inside edge to inside edge. I like the strong center fill I get with them close together. Maggies tend not to have much trouble with side wall interactions, so your 15 wide room may be fine. The open area you have behind your seat will help if anything. I haven't heard the 3.7's yet, but I have heard the 3.6's at less than 13 ft. They were poorly set up, but I can say I did not feel I was too close to the speaker. I'd say, do your auditioning carefully. If you fall in love with the 3.7's, go for it.

Brownsfan,

Thank you for your comments. As I think about it, certain albums do provide better soundstage and depth of field than other albums.

So...it appears you are suggesting that the 3.7's would not necessarily be too big for my space?

Live music does not always present with a depth of field that is notable. Sometimes, it presents with much less spatial information than I get through my system.

absolutely right!

Dsper, Your question is a good one and the answer is also of interest to me. I'm just not sure a definitive answer is possible. I have 1.6's in a 14 x 19 x 8 room with the speakers along the short wall, out about 5 feet. I have plans to put 3.7's in this room later this year. I hear you on the soundstage and depth of field. What I have noticed over the last 3 years, with an ongoing series of equipment upgrades, is that the soundstage and depth of field has increased. That tells me the Maggies are not the limitation. I've also noticed a large difference in this regard from one recording to another. Certain recordings give an amazing depth of field. Again that suggests that the Maggies are not the limitation. If you get an amazing depth of field with only one recording, that shows that your equipment can deliver, if the information is present in the recording. I listen to a lot of orchestral and chamber music live. This is a good sanity check. Occasionally, I close my eyes and pretend I'm at home listening to my rig. Live music does not always present with a depth of field that is notable. Sometimes, it presents with much less spatial information than I get through my system. For me, the goal is always to capture the live sound, not improve on it.

the front wall is the 15 foot wall. there is no way to place the speakers along the long wall