I posted a response to
this thread but it (the thread) remained buried in the thread listings – I thought it would be advanced to the “current queue.”
Anyway, since I would like to hear your opinions on the subject, I am restating my post to the original thread as a new thread (I apologize for the redundancy):
I just listened to the new 1.7s at the local dealer, who forewarned me that they sounded terrible due to not being broken in. Indeed, they sounded very thin, tizzy and totally lacking any dynamics in the mid-bass or bass frequencies. The dealer told me that this was to be expected and that he fully expects them to sound great once properly broken in.
When the 1.7s arrived, the dealer compared them to his 1.6s that were fully broken in and which he said totally blew away the new 1.7s (I did not get to hear this comparison since he recently sold his 1.6 demo pair). Through the 1.7s I felt that various well-recorded acoustic music did sound very promising, with respect to the resolution in the upper frequencies already sounding detailed and resolved, but when more dynamic material was played (rock, electronic, large orchestral passages, bass & drum) they sounded unacceptably thin and lacking bass of any substance whatsoever.
I have no real experience with Magies. Is this long (and necessary) break in time to be expected, and if so, how much do “new Magies” improve with break in? I have to wonder about all the glowing reviews…for their reviews, do the reviewers receive “pre-conditioned” (fully broken in) speakers?
I plan to revisit the dealer in about four weeks to reevaluate the new 1.7s.
I would appreciate other opinions (regarding the 1.7s)
Thanks.
Ben
