New Magnepan 20.7

[User211]

For argument's sake say you have convinced me, how much are we talking about? Are there any dealers or distributors in the U. S.?

Loads of info including the two US refurbishers here: D Sig Rebuild

You have to take a leap of faith. A big one, really. Also, if you plan to keep them a long time, you're relying purely on Graz for quality ribbons. If he cops it or stops it, you're doofered.

Money totally depends of which speaker and which mods you have done.

The Maggie's are a great price, though. You could buy a pair and mod those with frame bracing/stands/x-overs etc. Just make them more substantial, which is their biggest weakness.

 

[User211]

Thats what I Love about the ML'S

Agreed - panel changing is a cinch.

 

[edwinr]

I was originally going to buy a pair of MG3.6s and I auditioned a pair of MG20.1s a few years ago. Great sound from these panels when driven by really good amps and at reasonable spl's. At lower spl's the Maggies didn't seem to come alive. They certainly had a very big sound.

After listening to the original Summits, I went back and forth trying to make my mind up. I soon realised the 3.6s weren't really up to the quality of the Summits which should really be compared with the 20.1s. But the 20.1s were way too expensive - still nice though - and at that time I thought the 20.1s needed a bigger room then the Summits to sound their best.

There's one thing though that has plagued (bothered) me about any Maggie I've ever heard, and that's the slight grain when compared to the MLs. And they seem to harden up more than the equivalent ML speaker when driven at high levels. And there's the build quality issue with Maggies...

Still, don't take this as me not liking or respecting Maggies. I just think ML does it better.

 

[beek]

Even the pos/neg magnet field cannot
Keep up with the stats detail. The older units ( front magnets) had a better presentation than the new breed.
The units have been improved over the years but stil need to play loud to open up. I hear discontinuity between the driver types.

 

[User211]

Now these comments are interesting. One thing I always thought is that MLs need quite a bit of volume to stop sounding wishy washy and vague. Crank them up and everything changes.

Being as honest and objective as possible, I reckon my Duettas are definately better at low volume that the MLs I owned. However, still not as good as an MBL, say. Or most good quality dynamic speakers.

Just my thoughts i.e. basically for most planars, low volume replay is NOT a strength.

 

[tsv_1]

... for most planars, low volume replay is NOT a strength.

I used to feel the same way... especially having owned the 3.6r and other maggie models... however, IMHO, CLX sound wonderful at low levels, not to mention moderate or high. I was listening to some solo piano yesterday as background music (while writing end-of-year performance reviews for my direct reports... ugh), and I kept stopping to listen because I was floored at how detailed and alive the sound was even at relatively low listening levels. I should have fired up my iPhone SPL app to see what the pressure levels were, but I can't imagine they peaked much over 80dB at my listening position (about 3m away).

So yes... I agree that MOST planars have a hard time opening up at low levels... but there is at least one exception

 

[User211]

I dunno if Marck is reading, but one of the things he said was he was riding the volume higher than wth his Summits. Be interesting to hear his thoughts.

He's using an ARC 150, though. I wonder whether SS may fair better at lower volumes, Todd. Not sure why, really. Do you think the CLX is better - more open - with the Modwrights over the Prima Lunas at low volume?

 

[RUR]

This is why God invented Fletcher-Munson curves.

 

[tsv_1]

I dunno if Marck is reading, but one of the things he said was he was riding the volume higher than wth his Summits. Be interesting to hear his thoughts.

He's using an ARC 150, though. I wonder whether SS may fair better at lower volumes, Todd. Not sure why, really. Do you think the CLX is better - more open - with the Modwrights over the Prima Lunas at low volume?

The PLs were just as adroit within the first few watts as the MWs... I would still have the PLs if it weren't for the headroom issues at high SPLs. I wonder how much of this entire topic is really just due to the fact that when we're talking about quality playback, louder always sounds better (within a certain range). All the info is amplified... easier for your brain to decode. I'm not saying there aren't real differences... but with a relatively inefficient transducer like the Maggies, compared to a higher efficiency model like ML... the same pre-amp volume setting will inherently create a mental delta that might be hard to describe in any other way as "that speaker doesn't really start to sing till I turn it up".

Why do I bother trying to analyze people's opinons? Why?

 

[tsv_1]

This is why God invented Fletcher-Munson curves.

They were very phon-d of equal loudness

 

[RUR]

They were very phon-d of equal loudness

**Groans**

 

[User211]

This is why God invented Fletcher-Munson curves.

Nah, it's why loudness buttons were invented - that's a supposed cure, not the symptom. The F-M curves just describe the non-linearity of human hearing.

 

[tsv_1]

**Groans**

Come on... you smiled. Admit it.

 

[RUR]

Nah, it's why loudness buttons were invented - that's a supposed cure, not the symptom. The F-M curves just describe the non-linearity of human hearing.

Yup, though dynamic volume controls, in their many iterations, are an even better solution than the "one size fits all" button. My point, if there is one, is that it's downright unreasonable to expect any speaker to sound equally "right" as we dial down the volume.

Come on... you smiled. Admit it.

Todd, I have no sense of humor before 9AM.

 

[beek]

, I have no sense of humor before 9AM.

Just 9 AM thats pretty good here I would say about 12

What ever ML does wrong it does it right..

 

[User211]

Yup, though dynamic volume controls, in their many iterations, are an even better solution than the "one size fits all" button. My point, if there is one, is that it's downright unreasonable to expect any speaker to sound equally "right" as we dial down the volume.

Todd's do. However, I always thought he was from the planet Zarg or somewhere... guess the linear response in his hearing proves his extra-terrestrial origins.

 

[tsv_1]

... guess the linear response in his hearing proves his extra-terrestrial origins.

f*ckin' right!

BTW, the FM curves are 100% subjective... very anti-Zargian

 

[RUR]

BTW, the FM curves are 100% subjective... very anti-Zargian

Somewhat unbelievably, I can modify each and every one of the base FM curves in my preamp to suit my own, very peculiar subjective tastes. Conceived, I'm sure, as a cool feature for the über-audio nerd, I see it as a galactic PITA - a feature which I will never, ever use.

 

[tsv_1]

Somewhat unbelievably, I can modify each and every one of the base FM curves in my preamp to suit my own, very peculiar subjective tastes. Conceived, I'm sure, as a cool feature for the über-audio nerd, I see it as a galactic PITA - a feature which I will never, ever use.

Are you saying the TacT allows for volume-based graphic eq? Maybe I'm missing your point. That would certainly be pretty nifty... to adjust the curve (at some number of Hz steps presumably) for each and every dB step of the attenuator's range.

 

[Hocky]

Are you saying the TacT allows for volume-based graphic eq? Maybe I'm missing your point. That would certainly be pretty nifty... to adjust the curve (at some number of Hz steps presumably) for each and every dB step of the attenuator's range.

This is what Audyssey's DynamicEQ does except that the curve is not really adjustable.