Magnepan 3.7

Josh358, thank you! If the only difference is the shape/thickness of the wire/ribbon, and assuming the "quasi-ribbon" acts more like a planar dynamic than a true ribbon, the "quasi-ribbon" label seems to be a bit misleading.

Josh358 is correct. The difference is they have glued on a foil instead of gluing on a thin wire/coil.

It should make the "driver" lighter and faster. It should also give the radiating area a more consistent (pistonic) movement. All of this shoud translate to a more controled detialed sound.

On a side note for those that argue magnepans are built well should take off the sock and look at the bent over staples that hold the driver to the MDF, or the tention screws (wood screw with plastic button) strianght through the Mylar, or the degraded glue (very moist and tacky) that hold on the coil.

Anyway sorry to be negative. I am actually excited to hear the new model. I like the sound of the 3.6 and 20.1 pretty well and 3.7s are cheap (as they should be).

There's a lot of slop in the use of these terms. Some manufacturers refer to quasi ribbons as "ribbons," which really is misleading. Sometimes they just say "planar," which could mean anything. Also, quasi ribbon drivers cover the gamut. You have quasi ribbons that are basically true ribbons backed by plastic -- some of the Apogee mids, for example, which consist of three ribbons with side-by-side magnets (like a true ribbon), joined together with plastic. Then you have quasi ribbons in which the foil covers most of the surface area, like Magnepan's quasi-ribbon tweeters. Finally, you have Magnepan's new quasi-ribbon woofers, or at least the ones in the 1.7, in which the foil traces aren't much wider than the wires they replaced.

Still, however they're made, quasi ribbons seem to be effective at bringing the sound closer to the true ribbon sound, by controlling more of the diaphragm area and reducing diaphragm resonances. Since it isn't possible to make a true ribbon woofer and true ribbon midranges are marginal (Apogee used them and at their best they were wonderful but they had amplifier-destroying impedances and tended to twist at levels above 100 dB SPL), they're the best that can currently be done with planar magnetic/ribbon technology.

James,

I think the screws have to go through the mylar, their purpose is to compartmentalize the membrane so that the resonant frequencies are dispersed. Also, the Miloxane or NDF-30 coating shouldn't be tacky, if it is, it's deteriorating and the speakers will eventually delaminate.

Anyway, no argument that they're put together with glue and string. I just haven't noticed any real problems as a result, the only thing that happens to them is that they sometimes delaminate after many years and have to be refurbed, and the true ribbon tweeters will eventually sag and need to be restrung. From my perspective, the question is whether I'd rather have a speaker that looks beautiful inside or one that's equally functional but $1000 cheaper, but of course others may differ. I don't think it affects longevity, though, since the Miloxane goo is needed to damp diaphragm resonances. AFAIK, there's no material, however expensive, that would stand up longer, given the stresses to which its subjected.

Some people do upgrade their Maggies to higher standards, with exotic crossover components, better binding posts, and wood or metal frames.

Josh358,

I think you and I are on the same page. I guess I am more disappointed with the build quality than anything because I would like to own a pair. I would buy the 1.7 because they are only a few grand but once it clears five or more I really want them to look nice and hold up. It is really the only reason I do not own a pair of 3.6 or 20.1s.

Just think of what a high-end Magnepan could be in an aluminum frame with dove-tails attaching the mylar, with different sections for the mid/bass (rather than screws separating them), and a bonded ribbon/mylar rather than glue.

Never the less I hope these sound good. The dark cherry model in the picture looks very nice. Does anyone know if they improved the quality of the crossovers?

I think if I got panel speakers (I am not planning to) I would keep my current box speaker setup and use the back of the room for the panels. I would put my chair on casters and just turn it toward whatever system I wanted to use.