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Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other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
1,749 posts
 
@coldears

Instruments on a stage all have varying intensity/ dynamics but the Maggie’s homogenized everything into sonic wall paper. It had tone and colour etc but seemed to lack varying dynamics within that field. Like I said hard to explain.

I think that's a very good description of their sound. An album that really highlights the lack of varying dynamics - especially at low volume - is Supertramp's Breakfast in America.

 I also agree with a phrase I encountered in one review: "Maggie Mist." In my system, everything sounded like it was a bit diffused. The imaging was wide and deep but lacked precision. This really isn't surprising when one considers that the sound is radiating from an ~ 5' tall surface. Many claim that one strength of Magnepans is their clarity, however, I felt that the diffused sound really hindered them in that regard. To my ears, the 1.7s weren't any cleaner sounding than most $2K pairs of dynamic box speakers. 
Post removed 
nicknick
14 posts
 
I have been using Maggie panels for the past 7 years, first with a pair of 1.6 in my small 11' X 17' room. I liked them so much that I moved up to the bigger 3.7, but that was a mistake because my room just couldn't cope with the extra energy, not just in the bass region but all round. I struggled with them for 2 years and finally gave up & moved down to 1.7i with 1 DWM. They were driven by Berning Quadrature Z mono blocks (1.7i) and Plinius SA Reference (DWM). The sound was wonderful but I got itchy and got myself a pair of expensive Raidho D 1.1 bookshelves last month. To my dismay the super costly D 1.1 does not outperform my humble 1.7i across the board. Sure the bass punch is more pronounced but that's about it. Just shows how excellent value Maggie represents.
nicknick
14 posts
 
A cheap upgrade is to change to decent speaker binding posts (the originals break fairly easily anyway) and bypass the high frequency resistor pot & fuse holder, which shouldn't be a problem providing your amp is reliable without risk of DC offset.
secretguy
1,777 posts
 
The biggest downside of having Maggies is that you will be spoiled for life. Everything else sounds like boxes.
More to discover