2. speakers
  3. 1322981967

Emerald Physics 2.3 or Magnepan

Hi,
This is my first post here- I'll try to be as descriptive as possible.

I am in the market for a pair of speakers around $3-5k used.

I currently have a set of old Magnepans (10.1) that sound wonderful. The imaging and treble are superb. I miss the 'crack' of a snare drum though - i think the best word to describe it would be dynamics.

I usually listen to pop and rock, don't really care about the low end ( have two sub woofers)

I've read a lot about the EP 2.3s and people say that they have the sound of the Magnepans with the dynamics of regular speakers. For people who've heard them - is this true? Is the treble as revealing and the mid range as well sorted as a set of Magnepans?

Also, if anyone has heard the 1.7s would you say that the lack of dynamics no longer limits the Magnepans? I read somewhere that with the 1.7s the Magnepans are right up there in dynamics.

Thanks in advance.
My system is a Rotel RB 1090 and an Emotiva XDA-1 Proc/Preamp
sammisra
peterd
122 posts
 
I used to have Maggie 111A's 1989 to 1996,and 1.6 QR's til 2004.Thats the history.
Was interested in the Ep's after hearing them at RMAF, so purchased CS2's in 2008.Moved on to the CS2.3' this year.
Before I bought the 2.3's we made a trip to listen to the 1.7's and 3.6's again.
It only took 15 seconds and my wife said yep they are Maggie's time to go.
So hear we are Cs2.3's
I suppose the biggest difference is a more natural tonality and body coupled with the open baffle sound.Can't see going back.
They are not the best speaker I've heard but very good for the money.
They setup similar to Maggie's but require 2 stereo amps or 4 channels of a 5 channel amp.
dsper
663 posts
 
I owned Maggie 1.7's for about a year. Blew away my 1.2's.

The 1.7's are very dynamic with good bass. However, I thought that they were a little bit sterile sounding - not as sterile as B&W but just not warm enough.

Then I heard Maggie 3.6's which I bought just three weeks ago. The 3.6's are a big step up to me. Much warmer than the 1.7's. Bigger soundstage. Better bass. Better depth of field.

I mention the 3.6's because there are a lot of them out there at roughly the same price point as the Emerald Physics that you are considering.

I have not heard the Emerald Physics products but would like to try them. They are on my short list along with bigger Walsh Ohms and Tyler Acoustics.

This list is governed by dollars, not desire. I have heard Magico 5's and would love to audition them at home - but that is nuts because I cannot afford them.
sammisra OP
10 posts
 
Thanks everyone. I've heard the 1.7s but couldn't quite compare them. It seems however that the Magnepans (both 1.7 and 3.6) are worth another shot; at least a critical listening session. If only I could hear the EPs..
jaymark's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
jaymark
512 posts
 
I have had the CS 2's and currently have the CS 3's; also run the magnepan 1.7's on my reference system with a 140 wpc tube amp (Canary). Both the CS 3's and the 1.7's are run with subwoofers. In that configuration, the 1.7's are giant killers for the amount of money they cost. Clean, dynamic, and engaging. The CS 3's changed character totally with a subwoofer plus they take lots of break in; they are better than the CS 2's though the CS 2's have great bass without a subwoofer but require bi-amping.

One thing about the EP's. Get that Boehringer crossover box (ala piece of junk) upgraded. Doug Jessie at ASi Teknology did a complete rebuild of mine and the results over stock were stunningly good. You are debating though between two very, very nice speaker families/models so you will have a hard time going too wrong.
peterd
122 posts
 
Sammisra,
You may want to post your approximate area.
An Emerald Physics owner may offer a session.I'm one hour north of Detroit,Mi
cheers.
More to discover