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Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other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
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
That’s always been the problem [limited dynamic range, extreme directivity, etc.] with Maggies I had . But guys on here claim 1.7 on up has changed that on dynamic range at least.

It’s not just the "guys on here." It’s also several major reviewers familiar with Maggies over the years and how the x.7 series has changed that. All prior designs were done by Magnepan founder and chief engineer Jim Winey. A few years ago Jim Winey stepped aside and his son, Steve, stepped in. The pace of new products was pretty slow under Jim, but has really picked up under Steve: Consider: the DWM panels, the Mini-Maggies, and the entire x.7 series, starting with the 1.7s which used all quasi-ribbon drivers and added a supertweeter.

Soon after the appearance of the 1.7 came the 3.7, then the 1.7i and 3.7i, then the 20.7 and the new .7. Magnepan had *never* introduced that many model changes in that short a time frame before.

Jonathan Valin wrote two evaluations of the 1.7 introduced in 2010. The first was a "First Listen," published in Absolute Sound’s website in Feb. 2010.
The second was a full followup, based on the Feb. article, but expanded and published in Issue 205 (Aug. 2010).

More reviews:

It’s time to set aside the historical dogma and sweeping generalizations of how Maggies sound. If you haven’t heard any x.7 Maggies in a good setup, you don’t know how the current line of Maggies sound. The 1.6s were released 20 years ago and discontinued 8 years ago. The 1.7s have been on the market for over seven years already. It’s time to catch up.
ps
760 posts
 
@johnnyb53
+1
I hope the OP, SunnyJim, is not dissuaded by the negative hype found on the internets, most of which is unfounded and plain silly, and gets to hear Maggies in his home.   
kalali's avatar
kalali
1,977 posts
 

"If speaker is suited great for certain kind of music and not good for other kind of music, than this speaker by the general rule of thumb junk."

This might be true in theory but if this were a "general rule of thumb", we wouldn't have so many different designs, brands, or even sizes of speakers out there to choose from. Same content played through a very high sensitivity single driver speaker will sound very different when heard through a multi-driver, or ESL, or magnetic planar design speakers. And in many cases, particularly for large orchestral/multi instrument content, the experience will be much closer to "live" performance depending on the speaker size, etc.

corelli
1,010 posts
 
I owned the 1.7's for almost 5 yrs and really liked them.  They float a (too?) big soundstage and have that open sound I love.
I was shocked when I ordered the Tekton Double Impacts.  I now realized how I was missing the dynamics of real music.  The sound stage was perhaps even better.  The DI's produced the most realistic piano I've ever heard.  And then this corker--the DI's clearly were superior in grouped voices.  I could never pick out the detail of individual voices on my optimally set up 1.7's like I can with the DI's.  Wow!
Don't get me wrong, I'll always love the Maggies and what they do well.  But overall the DI's for me were so clearly superior I would never go back.
Not trying to push you to the DI's but just point out limitations of the 1.7 that I was not aware of. 
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
corelli, the secret sauce to the Tekton speakers is the quasi line source array. There are some characteristics of sound reproduction which line sources and panels share. I'm not saying they are identical or that the one can reproduce the other, but they do overlap in some respects. Just as with panels one has to accept certain compromises in performance when approaching a line source. What they do, some can do exceptionally well. 

If you were to work with a fine traditional 3-way you would be confronted with the lack of coherence of the quasi-line source array. I know, I know, you think it couldn't get more clear, delineated. That's wrong, and you would hear it immediately with a great 3-way. But, you would lose some of the characteristics of the line source in the process. It's all trade-offs in speaker design. 

Now, corelli, if you want a very interesting experience, switch back and forth over time between the two, panel and line array. You will be shocked at how "wrong" in comparison the other sounds as you adjust to the one playing. It takes time to adjust to a new speaker technology when you have been using the other. But, once adjusted it sounds "right" to the ear. Then, when you switch back again you have to readjust. But, sure enough, over the next few days it sounds more and more "right" to the ear. It teaches one to pay attention to the more nuanced variables of sound production and how one technology cannot capture the essence of perfect sound reproduction. 


More to discover