Maggie 1.7i's lack detail. Ideas?

Magnepans without the true-ribbon tweeters, such as your 1.7is, do lack some detail in the highs. Doesn’t matter what amp you pair with them, they will always lack some amount of treble detail compared to good dynamic cone speakers. Even when paired with the most transparent amplification in existence they will lack some detail, relatively speaking.

It’s most likely that your recollection of those older Maggies is based on their open, effortless soundstaging and imaging. That trait is what tricks the uninitiated into believing they’re more detailed than they are in reality. Also, they are very sensitive to toe-angle and can sound very bright if not positioned correctly, which probably also accounts for some of the perceived detail.

Don’t get me wrong. I love my Maggies. I own the .7s and previously owned the 1.7is. They’re great speakers but only in the context of their strengths (all speakers under ~$20K/pair have strengths and weaknesses). Those strengths are open/effortless scale and imaging, and midrange nuance unsurpassed by nearly any cone driver. They do have excellent midrange detail, just not so much in the highs. The true ribbon 3.7is have greater detail but lack the dynamic balance and imaging precision of my .7s. The LRSs are allegedly more detailed than the .7s. The 1.7is I owned were sorely lacking in midbass impact. So it seems to me that different Maggie models have different deficiencies, or strengths rather.

Anyhow, don’t go chasing detail that will never come. If you want Magnepan-like openness in conjunction with great detail, get a high quality coaxial monitor speaker with a stout cabinet (LS 50 Meta for example) and use subs to augment the bass.

Invariably, you’ll encounter some who will claim that Maggies are as detailed as any speaker when powered properly. I’d question the experience level of those who postulate such. My bet is they haven’t heard a good beryllium dome or a RAAL tweeter. That or maybe they’ve suffered too much hearing damage over the years.

 

 

I’d keep extolling the virtues but I have to head to the ear doctor for an upgrade in my hearing aids. What honey? That’s tomorrow? I can’t hear you? What?

If you find those Maggies are as detailed as your Focals then you likely need a hearing checkup indeed. That or your sources/amplification are not that revealing. Maybe a combination of both? 

 

 

To be clear, my Maggies are true ribbon models. Perhaps the QR versions are less detailed, I would not know. But I would not generalize on all Magnepans regarding this issue.

I did note a difference between the quasi and true-ribbon models in my earlier posts, but forgive my assumption that we are discussing the quasi-ribbon models since the OP has the 1.7is.

Though the true-ribbons are certainly capable of more detail, I still find they are lacking compared what I’ve heard from a RAAL or good Beryllium unit. I can only surmise this might have been due to the specific demo conditions, or that the size of the Maggie tweeter panels causes a sort of comb-filtering effect. The latter of which seems evident in all the measurement graphs I’ve seen of a Magnepan. This even seems to be the case for the Maggie with the smallest tweeter panel:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/magnepan-lrs-loudspeaker-measurements

Note the jagged treble response. This is likely due to a combination of factors including comb-filtering, but the smoothing Stereophile applies to their graphs is likely obfuscating the true depth of the treble nulls. Certainly, the “drum skin” effect plays a role as well, which is probably why amplifiers with high damping factor seem to improve detail to some extent.

your depressing me helomech. I’m going to try upgrading the DAC and pre-amp.

You might gain some ground there, but I wouldn’t expect a revelation. Sorry for my depressing take on this controversy but this is my honest experience and sometimes these sort of threads can use some balance.

I currently happen to use the most transparent amplification in existence (Benchmark AHB2 and LA4). While these amps can certainly elevate the transparency of any transducer, the Maggies still fall short of all other speakers in my stable in terms of detail. In some cases by a large extent, in others, it’s negligible. Now some will chime in here and claim the Benchmark gear isn’t up to snuff for reasons of power output or price, but I would vehemently disagree. I’ve owned pricier and more powerful gear and I’ve yet to hear any other amplification match the see-through transparency of the Benchmark stack. The AHB2 has yet to clip driving my .7s to high levels, and the amp maintains its imperceptible distortion levels up to the point of clipping. Now you might also be forgiven for thinking my anecdotes are useless because I referenced .7s, when you are discussing the 1.7is. Well, as noted in my earlier post, I’ve owned both, and I actually find the .7s to be the more transparent and detailed of the two, even when powered by mediocre amps.

Please don’t infer from my posts that I am here to trash Magnepans. That is not my intent. I am merely pointing out that they have weaknesses and strengths, as do the vast majority of speakers. I in fact enjoy Magnepans immensely for what they do well, including the 1.7is. When it comes to the “disappearing act,” few speakers can match them. Maggies simply need be enjoyed within a contextual framework of their strengths.

There do exist speakers that approximate the open, box-less sound of Maggies but with greater detail and dynamic impact, but the ones I’ve heard cost upwards of $20K/pair. Concerning “affordable” speakers, it’s a matter of picking your poison. Maybe buy a second pair of speakers to rotate through your system, which is what I do. A pair of mid-tier Triangle or Revel Performa speakers will allow you to hear the detail missing from your 1.7s. Just be forewarned that sometimes “comparison is the thief of joy.”