2. speakers
  3. 129773-1644

What are some of the downsides of owning a Magneplanar .7 or 1.7i ?

Thinking of moving up speaker wise, and so am considering  the fabled Magneplanar speakers, that is, either the  the .7, or supposedly new 1.7i.   (BTW, I am not sure the Maggie .7 is necessarily an upgrade, and has less bass than my current box speakers...see below)

Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other downsides of this design.  For the last 30 years, I have owned several traditional box design speakers. 

I currently have a pair of Golden Ear Technology model 7's....which I like and generally sound good However, I  would like to confirm what a planar design brings to the table in sound quality. I have read many times about the box-less sound  provided by this design, and its wide sound staging and low distortion. 

I think I have enough power with BAT VK-200 amp (100RMS) to drive the .7, but not sure that is enough to drive the MG1.7i. to higher volumes The pre-amp is a Conrad Johnson PV-14SE. 

The listening room area 12 X15ft, but opens into kitchen/dining area divided by a medium size couch. The rest of the space is approximately 12X18ft behind the sofa with a stupid counter island ( so I cannot move the sofa back any further.. The ceiling is 8 to 9 ft feet high ( not a cathedral ceiling, praise the Lord) . It is a bit of haul to the dealer I bought the Golden Ear T's from who also carries Magneplanar line.  All advice welcomed.    Thanks, SJ   

sunnyjim
jhills
619 posts
 
Over the years, since the early 80s, I've had many very nice speakers including Quad, Vandersteen, Focal, B&W, Gershman, Snell, PSB, etc and have spent many hours in night sessions auditioning many other very fine speakers including the Apogees and most recently - Wilson Audio Sophias and Raidho C2.5. 
I have come to one conclusion - there is no one best speaker to suit every audiophile.  Right now I am most happy (in my environment and on my budget) with my Magnapan 1.7s. and ADS sub and they are nicely handled by my Cronus Mag. II. Even though they do require a bit of space and time and patience to set up, once accomplished, I have heard few other speakers, at any price, that presents as large and deep of stage or image as well, even away from the sweet spot, as the 1.7s. and I've heard the same about the .7s and 3.7s, so not to sure where chriser was coming from.
If money, space and adequate power was no matter, My first choice of all speakers would be - a toss up between the Maggie 3.7i and the old classic Apogee Duetta II Sig. and close behind my old love, the Quad ESL 63. For now, the Maggie 1.7 is doing just fine, but then I guess I'm just a Stat/ Ribbon kind of guy.
Jim

wolf_garcia
6,737 posts
 
The biggest issue with Maggies is sauce stains from food fights that can break out at any time in a listening room. Otherwise, they're great. Note there's a restaurant nearby that has hung MGAs on the walls (several actually, supposedly to entertain the owner when the place is closed), and they're black so staining from hurled food is less noticeable.
shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
Downside of electrostatic panels is their lack of dynamic range to produce realistic rock or big band jazz or large symphonic pieces (Mahler) levels. They also tend to have a small sweet spot due to the extreme directivity of very large transducer surfaces.

At low SPL levels the distortion levels are world class.

Great choice if chamber classical or choral is more your thing.
schubert
7,386 posts
 
That's always been the problem with Maggies I had . But guys on here claim 1.7 on up has changed that on dynamic range at least .

gdnrbob
4,460 posts
 
@schubert 
That is good info.
I still remember Maggies from years past. I never thought they were lacking in dynamic range, but if newer models can plumb greater depths, then I owe it to myself to have another listen.
B
More to discover