Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
70.113.68.71
I just had these delivered to me and set up today by my dealer. The photo of the rear might be of interest since it shows the lack of external crossover.
I will wait until some break-in hours have elapsed until I comment on the performance.
Gary
Follow Ups:
It looks like they have already modified the 20.7s. They now come with an oval base. Not sure if the original release had handles on back either but both make it a lot easier to move these big boys, especially on carpet.
Mike
It looks like they have already modified the 20.7s. They now come with an oval base. Not sure if the original release had handles on back either but both make it a lot easier to move these big boys, especially on carpet.
Mike
Handles on back ....
All the MG20...Mg20.1s...an MG20.7 have had handle on the back...MG20.7 only ones i have seen with new base...looks Good i bet the new bases give better bass.. ..Hehe... New base looks a lot better...well too me! .... Tell us good as thay loooook?...good luck
The base is a bit better, but not realy a big improvement. The attaching points are still the same and not really ridgid.
More For looks...i gess thay figg...for the $$$$$ ....give something new...thay would sound better with better stans you know thay know this....But that were Mye stans come in..an others....thanks for the time
I upgraded from Maggie 3.7s and I have not hesitated or questioned my decision once. The 3.7s are the best "bang for the buck" out there and a truly good speaker, but the 20.7 is just better...dynamics, bass, low level resolution
I will let others choose if worth the price difference, but being a Maggie own since my 1st MGIIBs, I am in audio heaven.
BTW moving the 20.7s with the base and handles is a LOT easier for me than moving the 3.7s with the metal feet... just an FYI.. :-)
WOW!!! Your setup looks great, including the room (check out those beams!). I loved the 1.7s when I heard them last year. The 3.7s were less impressive (but not broken-in).
When I first heard the 20.7s my system had been shut down for several days, and the sound was disappointing. Fortunately I knew that simply moving my Cardas speaker cable was enough to destroy the sound, let alone the need for Maggies to break in. I was tempted, but didn’t want to put the 1 Ohm resister on the midrange- and what, wait for the speakers to eventually sound bad enough to remove it again? Hours of radio and pipe organ allowed the system to come back to life and popped the Maggie diaphragm’s cherry. That evening I slept encouraged by what I heard.
This morning the sound promised sweet tidings indeed! I won’t run down the usual laundry list of superlatives (but I could.) It’s still very early, but already, the midrange is very close to correct in relative level, and the bass / midrange resolution is ESL or Apogee ribbon quality. Of course, the tweeter is as good as good gets. And yes, it now all speaks with one voice. It’s still early, but I look forward now to every moment I can spend re-listening to all my music to hear just how good it can really sound, knowing all the while that it will only get better with time. Lucky, lucky, lucky me!
I’ll try to give another update when it seems appropriate, if I can tear myself away.
Gary
Hi Gary,
Any more updates on your 20.7's after 2 weeks ???
Thanks,
Tim
This is the first post that has me feeling a little bad about my 20.1s, which I love.
When I see this lousy feet on the 20.7 again I get really sad.
Why is it so hard to change a single screw or piece, is something I will never understand.
Yeah, I agree. Somewhat understand it on my $6K 3.7s, not really on $14k 20.7s.
Hi Gary,
When you are at the appropriate point in your break-in/eval, can you expound on the deltas between the 20.1's and the 20.7's?
Thanks,
Tim
Stunning. I'll be looking forward to your description of the sound, still haven't heard from any owners yet -- just the two reviews.
mmmmm Yummy. They don't look all THAT bigger than the 1.7. Maybe I can sneak a set in w/o the loving wife noticing. riiight... :)
BTW it's tough to tell, how far into the room are they? looks like maybe 6ft.
And a pair of very nice Mark Levinson amps You have!
No.33 i presume!?
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Great! :)
Are you having them so near the front wall all the time??? From the pictures you have a nice long room, try to pull them out for some 6-8 feet are report then.
I've had LOTS of planars, Maggie 3.6s for a year, and 20.1s for 10 years. I've danced them all over the floor, and this is where the midrange sounds best to me personally. Once you get the greater midrange, the rest is gravy IMO. My gravy's pretty darn good, also.
Gary
Congrats. Looks like a great sounding as well as great looking room. I think you'll love how the maggies make themselves at home
I see 2 sets of binding posts. Are they for bi-wiring or passive bi-amping?
Also interesting that Magnepan was able to fit the entire XO inside of the panels.
Enjoy.
The new crossovers are very tightly packed! They told me it took some doing to get everything to fit.
Really? There is no external crossover box anymore? I guess that didn't register in my fuzzy little mind till now. It annoys me that I can actually afford a set now and that I have an amplifier that can drive them... but no place to plant a set of 20.7's. Feel free to to pity me anytime the mood strikes you.BTW, there is a little envy in there somewhere for your 20.7's, Gary. I hope they exceed your hopes and expectations. Really, really nice.
Edits: 05/11/12 05/11/12
Tell me about it! My sorry excuse for a listening room has been driving me crazy. Though really that has more to do with my knowledge of how good things *could* be than any serious complaint about how they are -- I can still get magnificent sound, and a picture that blows away anything we could do in the studio in NTSC/CRT days. Even the little MMG's were a joy to hear.
I would think so.
The external XOs on the 20.1's are huge and heavy.
I think one of the TAS reviews said that they're using first order filters, so that also would have helped reduce the crossover size.
There is only one set of binding posts. It's the one on top in the pic. The two below are midrange and tweeter attenuators. You can insert resistors ..or not. That's about the only 'tweaking" you can easily do to these things. I think the crossover is slyly interwoven into the sock......
So, the attenuator posts don't break the overall speaker circuit at places that would allow bi-amping?
The 1.7,3.7 and 20.7's cannot be biwired or biamped without ripping them open and redoing the xovr.
Alan
Is there a method behind Magnepan's (recent) madness? Are they purposefully trying to discourage bi-amping? Shouldn't it be expected that their current giant, 20.7 perform better if bi-amped (or not)?
I think they believe that the major improvement in there .7 series of speakers is the new crossover they are using and the crossover does more to improve the sound than Biamping or biwiring would obtain.
Alan
In Magnepan's own words (more or less) as found both in my Tympani IV-A and 3.6 manuals alike, biamping allows for an "increased dynamic range and lower distortion". Their new crossover will not permit feeding these speakers more current or the possibilty of using different classes and types of amplifiers in the bass and treble arenas. I sense it as being a direct contradiction of their previous thoughts, and all of the advantages in biamping. I've never heard the 3.7, nevertheless in comparing a biamped 3.6, using a pair of *good* stereo amps, vs. the 3.7, I think I would know the outcome. In any event, I feel that it would be a lot of fun to get the two speakers (3.6 and 3.7) with all the required electronics into the same room and run such a test.
Apparently it was a consequence of the new crossover designs, they don't lend themselves to bi amping.
They're hoping that the money saved in not having to purchase additional electronics (not to mention more speaker cable and interconnects) will allow potential 3.7 customers to step up to their 20.7 (which similarly can't be biamped).
Which raises the question of whether it would make more sense to bi-amp a 3.6 or buy 20.1's . . . I'm guessing that the 20.1's would win hands down, but it's just a guess.
Another question it raises is whether to go for the 20.7s and perhaps more amp, or biamp (triamp?) recent 20.1s. I'm at a stage where I can make that ultimate purchase and would like to buy new for a couple reasons, but am not at all sure that will be the best sound. And there's nowhere to make the comparison (but that's another thread).
Dave
--it's close enough for jazz...
I wonder that myself - which would win in a listening test?
-Stock 20.7
-Line level active XO and tri amp 20.1
hmmmmm.... and the 20.1's are so cheeeep right now....
The way I look at it, if you're willing to modify your speakers a bit you can always bi-amp the 20.7. So whatever the outcome of the comparison, the 20.7 has more potential.
Series crossover?
Too much is never enough
That's what they used in the 1.7. I haven't seen a schematic of the 3.7 or 20.7 yet, but IIRC the press reports said the networks were first order.
everything in the room including the floors.. ;)
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Are those Mark Levinson 33's or 53's behind the 20.7's? Curious as to how you like the Levinson/Maggie combination.
SD
These are the older No. 33s, not the 53s. I haven't heard the newer amps, but Levinson has always been a good match with Maggies, and the 33s are far better than the 2 pair of ML #333.5s I had used with them in a passive biamp configuration. I like the combination of tube preamp with a high-current (high-quality) SS power amp.
Gary
Goodie goodie...may the break-in still grant you great enjoyment and the post break-in get you close to heaven!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: