What's Up with Magnapan at Shows?

Don,
I also use the Stereophile CD and the radio shack meter. They are very helpful and informative. As for things like coherence, use your ears. That is what I do. Not everyone hears the same thing. That is fine. I don't tell other people what they will or won't hear, but I don't mind telling people what I hear. I just suggest people listen. The good thing here is that no one is forcing sales on anyone. Before I bought I listened to a lot of well reviewed speakers that cost a lot more than the Maggies and I didn't like them. I could care less how they measured or that they were flat down to 27 hz. They weren't as musical as the Maggies, in my opinion.

Don,

I don't think a 3 Hz difference in the the -3 dB point is going to make much of an audible difference. Any speaker design consists of numerous interacting tradeoffs. The 3.7 is a radical redesign from the 3.6, with different tuning, conductors, and crossover. I don't know what accounts for the difference but I do know that the bass is tuned differently. Among other things, according to what Wendell told the magazines, improved midbass performance was a priority, with the midbass of the Tympani IVa the ideal.

I think it's worth noting to that the DWM isn't a subwoofer. Its 3 dB point is something like 40 Hs. There may be some mutual coupling with the baffle of the mains depending on room arrangement, and this could potentially extend the bass of both by increasing effective baffle size and lowering Fequal. But Wendell stresses that the purpose of adding the DWM is to tune the 3.7 to a larger or bass-shy room. As of course you know bass is extremely room dependent and Magnepan can only tune a speaker to an average room. The DWM can be used to match the 3.7 and other models to the room where that's necessary.

This was a big part of why Wendell chose to do this demonstration -- he's trying to explain that it's a matter of tuning diaphragm area to a specific room.

I don't know about you, but I was very impressed by the bass of the 3.7. I know Wendell says that the quasi ribbon foil doesn't make much of a difference in the bass, but it seemed to me anyway to be cleaner than the wire bass, which is already unusually clean at moderate levels.

I really did find the 3.7 an improvement over the earlier versions, BTW. The quasi-ribbon mid makes a difference, IMO. Part of this I think is also due to the new crossover design, which along with other changes improves driver blending. Single pole crossovers have distinct technical advantages, *if* your drivers can handle that range. Judging by a picture I've seen of a naked 3.7, Magnepan has done some clever design to allow the drivers to work over the full range.

Series crossovers have their own tradeoffs. The back EMF which you (or someone) mentioned on the Planar Circle is a drawback. Amplitude response immunity to driver impedance variations is an advantage. There are other trades as I'm sure you know. Why wouldn't Magnepan would have gone with a parallel crossover if performance had been better?

I'm not aware of any problems with the performance of the 3.7. It's a wonderful sounding loudspeaker, based both on my own listening and that of lots of people I know, including people who have upgraded from the 3.6. The worst I've heard is that it wasn't enough of a difference to justify the upgrade. That was what one person said here. Most people seem to think it's worth the upgrade, but, of course, that's subjective.

I suggest you talk to Mark and Wendell about why they didn't submit the 3.7 to Stereophile. There has been a lot of information and speculation, including my own, that according to them was incorrect.

Someone once said: "we teach people how to treat us". Seems as if we have taught Magnepan.

@Josh358

The reason Magnepan refused Stereophile's testing, and review of the 3.7 came from a post on AA from John Atkinson of Stereophile!!!

It is no rumor!

Maggies, no not for me. Find them: 
A to big, and, well ugly
B to power hungry
C no bass

To each their own