Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Seeking Advice - 20,1s, 3.7s, subs

Posted by Audiophilander on December 17, 2016 at 12:40:28:
I have no desire to get into a debate over the benefits of bi-amping, but it seems clear that Magnepan's research team implimented design changes they considered advantageous to the sound of the 3.7 making bi-amping either perfunctory or undesirable.

While the manufacturer suggests that bi-amping may offer advantages to earlier lines that allowed for experimentation, the benefits have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, taking into account the possibility of introducing less desirable variations in top to bottom performance that would not occur with a single source of amplification. That said, implimentation of any modification will determine it's value based on a range of acoustical factors, not the least of which is the experimenter's listening environment and hearing.

I've owned many systems over the years, only moving to Magnepan the last few years. I'd auditioned Maggies back in the late 90's (1.6) and was not moved by their top to bottom presentation. Given the associated gear and listening room that demonstration left me with an impression of sterility rather than musicality. I ended up continuing my quest settling on early versions of Gallo Reference speakers augmented with a massive Velodyne sub.

Fast forward 16 years. I was motivated to audition Maggies again (this time 3.7i) as my then current Gallo Reference 3A speakers failed to achieve engaging musical experience after moving to a larger home and availing myself of a larger livelier listening room.

After thoroughly auditioning a key selling point of the 3.7i was the speaker 's smoother top to bottom integration. This speaker wasn't designed for bi-amplification. Could the 3.7i benefit from it? I have no idea, but once installed these speakers didn't leave me wanting more or curious about missing potential. They integrate well in my listening environment with a well designed no nonsense sub that disappears into the sound field. Top to bottom musicality is reward enough.

Keep in mind that I'm not opposed to experimentation with this fascinating speaker line. Maggies have a well earned reputation with the hobbiest as being infinitely adaptable and I'd never criticize those who are confident that they can draw more out of them performance-wise.

For me though, it's all about enjoyment of music, and when fiddling is desired, making those adjustments through front end gear (tube rolling). I have no concerns about the power driving these speakers. The Sanders Magtech amp is ideally suited to the 3.7i ...a heavenly marriage of sorts... And the Hsu Research ULS-15 sub integrates well, in fact, much better with the Maggies than their predecessors.

Your system is quite impressive. I'm very pleased with mine. It may not be the best out there, but it makes me happy. I'm not a DIY'er or technically proficient experimenter. Of the two of us, you may indeed be the elder statesman, but unless you entered the world prior to Ike's presidency as I did, we can quit measuring.