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Besides "Maggies" having outdated speaker terminals that might be a struggle with banana plugs,, and they are generally power hungry, I am curious if anyone can honestly tell me of any other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
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,454 posts
 

I recently took a magnet, and tested all the parts on the terminal plates of a pair of Tympanis. The parts appear to be the same as on current models, and here’s what I found: The speaker terminals (those short little tubes into which you insert banana jacks or bare wire) are ferrous! Steel, I presume. So are the nuts which secure the terminals to the plate, as are the rivets which secure the fuse blocks to the plates. All the other parts---the plate itself, the tags onto which the internal wires are soldered, which are then installed onto the backs of the terminals, and the fuse holders, are non-ferrous, aluminum perhaps.

The steel speaker wire terminals have to go. Steel?! Luckily, the Cardas binding posts fit perfectly in the holes into which the stock posts were installed, no modifying needed. However, the Cardas posts are just slightly deeper than the cavity in the MDF speaker frame, so one needs to move the plate out from the frame a little. I got some aluminum stand-offs at my hardware store, putting them between the plate and the speaker frame, and it works perfectly.

The fuse blocks are connected to the + speaker terminal with round clips, so when the terminals are removed, the fuse blocks can be left disconnected if one chooses. Another piece of trash removed from the signal path, for increased transparency.

rackon
301 posts
 
Classical music is my thing (choral singer and organist, spouse was principal bassoonist with symphony  orchestra). I went from Maggies to Alons to Nolas...to GoldenEar Tritons. Hubby and I recently auditioned Maggies (.7, 1.7 and 3.7). We preferred the Triton Two+ or Three+ by a considerable margin. Plus much easier to place in our room. Easier to drive. And much more satisfying to us on large scale orchestral and choral works. (We thought the Triton 7s were nice speakers for the $$ but they did not float our boat. The Threes are more transparent, dynamic and better in every way to my ears, worth the upgrade.) However, if you love planars, I say go for whatever floats your boat.
jafreeman's avatar
jafreeman
689 posts
 
The stock feet supplied by Magnepan should be replaced with the Mye Stand or similar, and the stock fuses should be replaced for an easy upgrade--Synergistic Blacks are the best by far, and the bass crossovers on the older 3.X series should come off their mounts for isolation--the Cardas jumper kit is great for that. Two small subs bring out more dynamics up and down.  After all this, and for the cost, there is an open, full soundstage.  And, they benefit greatly by getting them up off the floor for isolation from vibrations feeding back into the stands--even Mye Stands--which provide a secure platform for an isolation scheme--without a heavy box, and with only a perimeter frame, Maggies are sensitive to vibrations--in my experience and opinion.
Post removed 
prof
3,450 posts
 

I haven't owned Maggies but I remember immediately being impressed by certain aspects of the sound (they generally sounded great).

I'd owned Quad 63 electrostatics and while I was first in love with the transparency and boxless sound - they sounded so different it was part of what got me back into high end audio to begin with - over time I grew frustrated with the weightless aspect of the sound.  The music just didn't seem to activate the air in a dynamic manner, so the effect was like having a big super clear window on the performance, but it was always happening "on the other side" of the speakers in another room.  I could hear everything, but not feel the sense of air being moved.   I got into dynamic speakers and have never looked back (that same weightless quality is still what I hear in every electrostatic, including the mega expensive Martin Logans (once the woofer passes to the panels).

However, Maggies seemed to be a great in-between sound: they did that boxless panel-like presentation and transparency, but with more density
and "thereness" to the sound.

I also always liked the tone of the maggies I heard - though I know some can point out a metalic tinge here or there, mostly I found them sort of warm-toned and consonant with acoustic instruments.

In contrast, the virtual definition of "transparency at the cost of tone" were the Apogee speakers.  Every Apogee I ever heard...yuck!...sounded metallic and icy to my ears. 
More to discover