2. speakers
  3. 1273625566

New Magnepan 1.7

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
2chnlben
2chnlben OP
595 posts
 
Thanks Elizabeth.

I love the dynamic range of driver-based boxed systems, but I have a passion for midrange clarity and sweet highs. For me, there has always been a tradeoff and I have until recently been satisfied with the compromise I experience with dynamic box speakers.

I relish being able to really crank the volume and feel the impact when the rocking mood strikes me and since I grew up in the seventies, that mood strikes often. What moves me even more though is the sweet sound of acoustic music and female vocals, whether it be folk, singer/songwriter, jazz, classical, blues or new age, I truly love the sound of live acoustic music. Given this, think I’m ready to give up the thundering dynamics for the sweet midrange and highs of a planner speaker. But, for me, this necessarily means compromising since my rock, funk and huge orchestral passages simply will not sound as grand and dynamic.

The 1.7s have certainly caught my attention so I am very interested in the opinions of magie owners in general and of course from those experienced with the 1.7s. I would like to hear about incorporating subs with the magies as well and how the combination sounds with big sweeping symphonic and orchestral passages and on loud seventies rock music (e.g.: Zep, Purple, Sabbath, War, etc…). I know magies can sound very special, but my brief experience with the (new) 1.7s was a real let down.

Thanks
ojgalli
165 posts
 
2chnl: From your description of what you want, maggies would be good, but you can do better and get both dynamics and clarity if you consider active speakers that are not ported. Do some research. Look for sealed or dipole systems with good dispersion/off-axis characteristics. Good luck.
stilljd
153 posts
 
Ben,

Can't speak directly to the 1.7's as I have not heard them. But I can speak from my experience with 1.6's I have had for 8 years.

Break in - very long. At least a month of almost 24/7 at various levels.

Accoustic and Female vocals - play very nicely on 1.6's. One of their strengths.

Aggressive & loud rock - almost. Big soundstage and plenty of SPL's but a little weak below 60hz which is where you get some of the impact of loud rock from. You also have be prepared for some sonic disappointments from the early recordings. They can show up a little weak on Maggies.

Sub - does help. Very hard to integrate seamlessly because of the cone/planar difference. The EQed subs might be easier.

Listening space - you need some room behind the speakers. Mine are 52 inches out into the room for the best balance of properties. Moving them out and back changes the quarter wave cancellation frequencies and bass/mid bass response. So, you can play around a little/lot to get the best balance for your tastes.

Amplification - need lots of power to start to bloom. You will never believe the difference unless you try it with low power and high power amps.

FWIW - rather than spend a lot on high $ amps, I bypassed the crossover and inserted an active crossover with modest amps. Those that understand the numbers claim it is the same as quadrupling power output. I'll have to take their word for that. But, the difference was amazing. There are more reasons for the improvement than just power, but that is another thread.

Finally - The 1.7's are built differently than the 1.6's. I think you would be very wise to wait to hear them broken in.

Hope this helps.

Jim S.
2chnlben OP
595 posts
 
Ojgalli:

Thanks. The 1.7s are purported to be one of the greatest values in high-end audio. For $2,000 I’m interested. Otherwise, I’m content with what I have (considering I have to be responsible with my finances since my kids’ education takes precedence over my hobbies). So, the question back to you is, do you have experience with active concealed speakers at $2,000 that provide what you describe?
ojgalli
165 posts
 
I guess I should have understood a $2k budget. I have only heard the 1.6, and for the money, to my ears, there's nothing better. In that priced range, I don't know of any sealed and/or active to beat them.
More to discover