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Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other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
helomech
1,727 posts
 
To my ears, the Magnepan 1.7i is not only better than the Triton 7s, but much better than the Triton 1s as well. The caveat is that they don't open up until moderately high volumes. Maggies at 65db sound dull and thin, at 80db, they can sound glorious. IME, something like 200 watts into 4 ohms should be plenty. They can make an amp very warm. 

I don't think they're as picky about placement as many claim, but they do seem to react to almost anything in a room, if only to a small extent. They are detailed but I understand why some refer to them as having a "Maggie Mist." It's as though they're detailed but a bit veiled at the same time. To use an Art Dudley adjective, maybe a lack of "touch." I think this has to do with their low sensitivity coupled with the low impedance.
danbyrd
6 posts
 
I am a Maggie user for over 40 years;  my secret is to place the speaker 4 to 5 feet from the back wall and place the tweeters just within 5 feet apart.  This brings coherence, bass coupling, and rich timbre.  It's about hearing the acoustical space of the recording and not lateral separation, too much of which causes smearing.  They should be towed in until one hears the acoustical space jell;  one sound top to bottom and left to right.  Multi mike with sound better too.

Dan
joejoe
69 posts
 
Aside from their physical size, lack of bass, their hunger for power, placement issues (need to be put well in your room),  nothing. 
dinasty's avatar
dinasty
13 posts
 
The biggest problem with Maggie's is they sound lifeless unless you listen at high volume levels.  If you like to listen moderately loud, you won't be able to find a conventional speaker less than $10k that sounds anywhere near as good, unless you like echoes from a box. But if you listen at lower levels, I think you would be happier with a Martin Logan planar.  At lower volumes you would again need the 10k to get close to the Logan planars, with the you might like echoes in a box caveat again.  
chrisr's avatar
chrisr
543 posts
 
Directionality, narrow sweetspot. They are a one-listener speaker.
Require lots of power to sound dynamic.
More to discover