Having been suitably impressed by the Magnepan 2.7i, I began to wonder what Magnepan could offer at about half the price, what tradeoffs would be involved, whether those tradeoffs would be significantly mitigated by adding Magnepan’s “x” modifications (which are now available for all models), and how the modified MG 1.7x compared with the previously auditioned MG 2.7i, as well as the 1.7i.
The MG 1.7i is a 3-way, full range, magneplanar loudspeaker. Each section, the mid-bass and tweeter, is comprised of aluminum foil. Often referred to as “quasi-ribbon”, the foil is adhered to a Mylar diaphragm which is visible through the front grill cloth. The MG 1.7i produces sound by introducing an AC signal to the conductive foil on the diaphragm which reacts to a fixed array of magnetic strips mounted behind the Mylar. The reaction vibrates the diaphragm projecting sound as a dipole. The MG 1.7i can be thought of as a MG2.7i without the True Ribbon Tweeter. As with the MG 2.7i, the MG 1.7i has been improved over earlier models by reducing the mass of the diaphragm.
The ”x” is a modification package comprised of the following elements:
-replacement of all capacitors with high quality, copper rich, polypropylene capacitors.
-replacement of all inductors with high gauge copper wire and air-core, bobbin wound coils.
-replacement of all wire with 15 gauge or higher solid copper wire.
-better inputs.
-significant improvements to the rigidity and bracing of the speakers and to the stands; and
-matching of parts to ensure that right and left speaker cross overs are closely matched.
The “x” modification is available for all floor-standing speakers, except the LRS+, varying in price depending on the speaker involved. In the case of the MG 1.7, the “x” modification adds about $2,000 to the price of the speaker bringing it within $1,500 of the price of the MG 2.7i.
Methodology
The comparisons of the two versions of the MG 1.7 were again conducted at Houston dealer Timbre Audio’s showroom due to my inability to easily move my Acapella Triolons Excalibur speakers to make room for the Magnepans in my home system. Given that I listen at Timbre on an almost weekly basis, I am quite familiar with their sound rooms and equipment. The speakers were auditioned on a system commensurate in price with what one might expect to be used with speakers at this price point. The system was as follows:
Linn LP12 turntable with a Lingo 4 power supply, Kore sub chassis, Linn Krane tonearm and Linn Koil cartridge; Linn Uphorik phono stage; VTL 5.5 II preamplifier; and Linn Klimax Twin amplifier.
For purposes of this comparison, the same selections were played first on the MG 1.7i then subsequently on the MG 1.7x, noting any sonic differences.
Listening – MG1.7i
Scofield/Metheny, I Can See Your House, Tone Poem re-issue of a Blue Note recording
To start with, I was surprised at the highs on the 1.7i. They reminded me quite a bit of the highs on the 2.7 with the True Ribbon Tweeters, except the 1.7 weren’t using ribbons, at least not in the same way. Nevertheless, the space in which the musicians were playing was quite open, and the cymbals were distinct and clear, without sounding unnecessarily bright and edgy. The imaging was pretty satisfactory, as well.
The Scofield-Metheny album was the first we listened to when getting to know the 2.7i and was serving the same purpose here. This is a $3,000 speaker, which these days isn’t crazy expensive. The sound was immediately inviting. All the fundamentals were there, which is not the norm in this price range. Indeed, one surprising feature was that the sound seemed in some ways more integrated than that of the 2.7i – at least initially. There was more of an illusion of listening to a single driver speaker, with all those positives, except these were more full range. The bass was surprisingly punchy and forward: I felt the bass drum and the tones of the electric bass through my feet. The guitar sounds of Metheny and Scofield were quite distinct in their differences.
Was I able to hear the last word in detail on the 1.7i? No, but listening was a rewarding experience. I enjoyed it and I liked these speakers.
Falla, Nights in the Gardens of Spain, London ffss, CS 6013
It was with this first orchestral record that I noticed a greater difference between the 1.7i and 2.7i. With the 2.7i, it was as if I could almost visualize the orchestra – the imaging was that specific, and the top end that open. Also, the strings were generally rather sweet-sounding.
With the 1.7i, I missed some of the imaging and spaciousness. The strings came across with a bit more edge. That’s not necessarily unrealistic – we will never know what the mics actually “heard.” But it’s not quite as pleasant sonically. Nevertheless, the sound overall was pleasing. The piano often had a “you are there” quality to it. It seemed to have been recorded up front and side to side, such that when the pianist (Soriano) ran up and down the keyboard, it went across the stage somewhat.
Again, as with the Scofield/Metheny record, these speakers provided a pleasant and rewarding musical experience, whatever their limitations might be.
David Sylvian, Everything and Nothing, Virgin
This is one of my favorite albums, one that I have heard many times on many systems. Of all the records we heard, this was the only disappointment. Perhaps due to a room placement issue, there was a somewhat nasal aspect in the frequency range – a suck-out, if you will, that for some reason came to the fore with this combination of sound engineering and speaker. Sylvian’s voice did not sound quite right, quite the way I’m used to.
This is also a bass-heavy record, and the bass is very important as a platform for what happens above. The 1.7i just can’t quite rise to the occasion, although the bass drum, synths, etc. were clearly there to be heard. Yet, again, as I settled back to listen, the sound and the music played their role: I enjoyed what I heard and wanted to hear more. But I was now curious to see what the X modifications would do.
This Ansermet stereo 10” LP from the 50’s is reputedly better sounding than the 12” LP to which it relates. It certainly sounded good on the 1.7i, and showed them at their best; very open with good imaging, but still not up to the 2.7i, but that is only fair, given the price difference.
Although the top end was good, the slight lack of extension compared to the 2.7i may have been a blessing here. A 10” record that is 60+ years old is going to have some surface noise. This copy was pretty darn quiet, but not entirely. On the 1.7i, the surface noise was not obvious. A few light ticks did not interfere with the pleasure of listening here, where they could easily on a more revealing speaker.
Coltrane, Prestige 7105 (mono)
This was Coltrane’s first outing as a band leader for Prestige. This version was remastered by Analogue Productions. It’s mono, although you can hardly tell. The first tune on side 2, “Straight Street” is classic hard bop, and we played it at a good driving volume. The 1.7i were very accommodating. These speakers have drive and pacing. I just wanted to get out of my chair and dance around (privately, of course). The bass was strong and present. I particularly liked the growl of the baritone sax in the ensemble lines. It was right there, no question. And Coltrane was just jumping out of the speakers, like Coltrane does. Very clean and articulate sound, including every change in timbre as he moved or adjusted his tone.
MG 1.7x
Coltrane (see above)
My initial impression, moving from the 1.7i to the 1.7x with this album was of notably greater refinement. Coltrane’s sax moved from out front between the speakers to back behind the speakers. The cymbals became somewhat lighter and crystalline, with greater variation depending upon which cymbal was being struck, and the way in which it was struck. The leading edge of the piano became more complex, more realistic; warmer, even.
It is easy to misjudge the image complexity one can get out of a mono recording. With the 1.7x, that complexity came to the fore. The extra $2,000 in expense really buys something here.
David Sylvian (see above)
I was particularly curious to hear how the Sylvian record would work with the x, particularly with the slightly nasal crossover issue and the surface noise experienced when listening to this on the 1.7i. As to the overall impression: the 1.7 in general were not enough to handle this recording in the way that beefy dynamic speakers can. It wanted for the requisite gutsiness, combined with the ability to handle really complex material at the same time. However, the x came notably closer to what my ears were seeking. I particularly liked the ability of the improved highs to give me more of the detail than I heard with the 1.7i. The advantage was positively sexy.
Ansermet, “Images” (see above)
The difference between the i and the x became especially noticeable upon listening to this 10” again. The most noticeable difference was in the delicacy. That by itself was enough. Suddenly, we went from a good-sounding record to a gorgeous-sounding record. The orchestra was now back behind the speakers, spread out as in a concert hall. The strings were sensuous and airy, without the somewhat off-putting edge of the i. There was more variation in their tone color, as one would hear in a concert hall. I expected to be annoyed by surface noise, but I was not, though I could hear more of it – though overall, there was not much.
I should add here, too, that the occasional nasality in the sound of the i was not present in the x. I assume, then, that it may have been a crossover anomaly.
Scofield/ Metheny (see above)
The x also brought a substantial improvement in the listening experience for this Scofield Metheny recording. As with other records, the instruments largely moved behind the speakers, with improved placement. The drums were now spectacular, with great clarity in the top end, as well as richness to the toms and the bass drum. Bill Stewart is a very imaginative and expressive drummer, but to recognize this, it’s necessary to hear the detail – he will hit whatever he needs to, however he needs to, in order to get his point across.
I could go on, but it would be more of the same about clarity and detail, more delicacy, more realistic attacks/leading edge. But you get the idea – this is simply a notably more satisfactory listen.
Falla, “Nights in the Gardens of Spain” (as above)
The Falla played to all of these things that the 1.7x do superbly. There was a crystalline shimmer to the orchestra and the piano that was missing before that brought much more substantial verisimilitude to the proceedings. A truthfulness that added very substantially to the listening experience. It was not the concert hall. But closer is – usually – much better, of course.
Conclusions
By the time we got to the end of our listening sessions with the 1.7x, the speakers seemed to have really settled in…or my ears had learned to focus on their strong points. In any event, at this point, there was simply no competition: the x were clearly notably superior to, and preferable to, the 1.7i such that if I were considering the 1.7, I would strongly recommend squeezing the additional funds from wherever possible to upgrade to the x. It’s not just a question of gaining greater access to the information on the record (or whatever the source may be). It is the improvement in virtually all areas of the listening experience, particularly in the improved delicacy, space, imaging and ultimately tonal quality of the material.
Likewise. If I were considering the purchase of any Magnepan speaker, I would try to find the funds for the “x” upgrade for that particular model or alternately purchase the model immediately below but with the “x” modifications.
Note: I would like to thank Michael Heusi, the owner of Timbre Audio, for making space and equipment available for these listening comparisons at times when the store is normally closed to customers.
(Page 1 of 1)
Specification:
Description: 3-Way, Full-Range, Quasi-Ribbon
Freq. Resp.: 40-24 kHz +/- 3dB
Rec Power: Read Frequently Asked Questions
Sensitivity: 86dB/500Hz /1m/2.83v
Impedance: 4 Ohm, nominal
Dimensions: 65" x 19" x 2"
Warranty: Limited 3 years to original purchaser see warranty document
Having been suitably impressed by the Magnepan 2.7i, I began to wonder what Magnepan could offer at about half the price, what tradeoffs would be involved, whether those tradeoffs would be significantly mitigated by adding Magnepan’s “x” modifications (which are now available for all models), and how the modified MG 1.7x compared with the previously auditioned MG 2.7i, as well as the 1.7i.
The MG 1.7i is a 3-way, full range, magneplanar loudspeaker. Each section, the mid-bass and tweeter, is comprised of aluminum foil. Often referred to as “quasi-ribbon”, the foil is adhered to a Mylar diaphragm which is visible through the front grill cloth. The MG 1.7i produces sound by introducing an AC signal to the conductive foil on the diaphragm which reacts to a fixed array of magnetic strips mounted behind the Mylar. The reaction vibrates the diaphragm projecting sound as a dipole. The MG 1.7i can be thought of as a MG2.7i without the True Ribbon Tweeter. As with the MG 2.7i, the MG 1.7i has been improved over earlier models by reducing the mass of the diaphragm.
The ”x” is a modification package comprised of the following elements:
-replacement of all capacitors with high quality, copper rich, polypropylene capacitors.
-replacement of all inductors with high gauge copper wire and air-core, bobbin wound coils.
-replacement of all wire with 15 gauge or higher solid copper wire.
-better inputs.
-significant improvements to the rigidity and bracing of the speakers and to the stands; and
-matching of parts to ensure that right and left speaker cross overs are closely matched.
The “x” modification is available for all floor-standing speakers, except the LRS+, varying in price depending on the speaker involved. In the case of the MG 1.7, the “x” modification adds about $2,000 to the price of the speaker bringing it within $1,500 of the price of the MG 2.7i.
Methodology
The comparisons of the two versions of the MG 1.7 were again conducted at Houston dealer Timbre Audio’s showroom due to my inability to easily move my Acapella Triolons Excalibur speakers to make room for the Magnepans in my home system. Given that I listen at Timbre on an almost weekly basis, I am quite familiar with their sound rooms and equipment. The speakers were auditioned on a system commensurate in price with what one might expect to be used with speakers at this price point. The system was as follows:
Linn LP12 turntable with a Lingo 4 power supply, Kore sub chassis, Linn Krane tonearm and Linn Koil cartridge; Linn Uphorik phono stage; VTL 5.5 II preamplifier; and Linn Klimax Twin amplifier.
For purposes of this comparison, the same selections were played first on the MG 1.7i then subsequently on the MG 1.7x, noting any sonic differences.
Listening – MG1.7i
Scofield/Metheny, I Can See Your House, Tone Poem re-issue of a Blue Note recording
To start with, I was surprised at the highs on the 1.7i. They reminded me quite a bit of the highs on the 2.7 with the True Ribbon Tweeters, except the 1.7 weren’t using ribbons, at least not in the same way. Nevertheless, the space in which the musicians were playing was quite open, and the cymbals were distinct and clear, without sounding unnecessarily bright and edgy. The imaging was pretty satisfactory, as well.
The Scofield-Metheny album was the first we listened to when getting to know the 2.7i and was serving the same purpose here. This is a $3,000 speaker, which these days isn’t crazy expensive. The sound was immediately inviting. All the fundamentals were there, which is not the norm in this price range. Indeed, one surprising feature was that the sound seemed in some ways more integrated than that of the 2.7i – at least initially. There was more of an illusion of listening to a single driver speaker, with all those positives, except these were more full range. The bass was surprisingly punchy and forward: I felt the bass drum and the tones of the electric bass through my feet. The guitar sounds of Metheny and Scofield were quite distinct in their differences.
Was I able to hear the last word in detail on the 1.7i? No, but listening was a rewarding experience. I enjoyed it and I liked these speakers.
Falla, Nights in the Gardens of Spain, London ffss, CS 6013
It was with this first orchestral record that I noticed a greater difference between the 1.7i and 2.7i. With the 2.7i, it was as if I could almost visualize the orchestra – the imaging was that specific, and the top end that open. Also, the strings were generally rather sweet-sounding.
With the 1.7i, I missed some of the imaging and spaciousness. The strings came across with a bit more edge. That’s not necessarily unrealistic – we will never know what the mics actually “heard.” But it’s not quite as pleasant sonically. Nevertheless, the sound overall was pleasing. The piano often had a “you are there” quality to it. It seemed to have been recorded up front and side to side, such that when the pianist (Soriano) ran up and down the keyboard, it went across the stage somewhat.
Again, as with the Scofield/Metheny record, these speakers provided a pleasant and rewarding musical experience, whatever their limitations might be.
David Sylvian, Everything and Nothing, Virgin
This is one of my favorite albums, one that I have heard many times on many systems. Of all the records we heard, this was the only disappointment. Perhaps due to a room placement issue, there was a somewhat nasal aspect in the frequency range – a suck-out, if you will, that for some reason came to the fore with this combination of sound engineering and speaker. Sylvian’s voice did not sound quite right, quite the way I’m used to.
This is also a bass-heavy record, and the bass is very important as a platform for what happens above. The 1.7i just can’t quite rise to the occasion, although the bass drum, synths, etc. were clearly there to be heard. Yet, again, as I settled back to listen, the sound and the music played their role: I enjoyed what I heard and wanted to hear more. But I was now curious to see what the X modifications would do.
Ansermet, Debussy Images; 10-inch, Decca SWL 8504.
This Ansermet stereo 10” LP from the 50’s is reputedly better sounding than the 12” LP to which it relates. It certainly sounded good on the 1.7i, and showed them at their best; very open with good imaging, but still not up to the 2.7i, but that is only fair, given the price difference.
Although the top end was good, the slight lack of extension compared to the 2.7i may have been a blessing here. A 10” record that is 60+ years old is going to have some surface noise. This copy was pretty darn quiet, but not entirely. On the 1.7i, the surface noise was not obvious. A few light ticks did not interfere with the pleasure of listening here, where they could easily on a more revealing speaker.
Coltrane, Prestige 7105 (mono)
This was Coltrane’s first outing as a band leader for Prestige. This version was remastered by Analogue Productions. It’s mono, although you can hardly tell. The first tune on side 2, “Straight Street” is classic hard bop, and we played it at a good driving volume. The 1.7i were very accommodating. These speakers have drive and pacing. I just wanted to get out of my chair and dance around (privately, of course). The bass was strong and present. I particularly liked the growl of the baritone sax in the ensemble lines. It was right there, no question. And Coltrane was just jumping out of the speakers, like Coltrane does. Very clean and articulate sound, including every change in timbre as he moved or adjusted his tone.
MG 1.7x
Coltrane (see above)
My initial impression, moving from the 1.7i to the 1.7x with this album was of notably greater refinement. Coltrane’s sax moved from out front between the speakers to back behind the speakers. The cymbals became somewhat lighter and crystalline, with greater variation depending upon which cymbal was being struck, and the way in which it was struck. The leading edge of the piano became more complex, more realistic; warmer, even.
It is easy to misjudge the image complexity one can get out of a mono recording. With the 1.7x, that complexity came to the fore. The extra $2,000 in expense really buys something here.
David Sylvian (see above)
I was particularly curious to hear how the Sylvian record would work with the x, particularly with the slightly nasal crossover issue and the surface noise experienced when listening to this on the 1.7i. As to the overall impression: the 1.7 in general were not enough to handle this recording in the way that beefy dynamic speakers can. It wanted for the requisite gutsiness, combined with the ability to handle really complex material at the same time. However, the x came notably closer to what my ears were seeking. I particularly liked the ability of the improved highs to give me more of the detail than I heard with the 1.7i. The advantage was positively sexy.
Ansermet, “Images” (see above)
The difference between the i and the x became especially noticeable upon listening to this 10” again. The most noticeable difference was in the delicacy. That by itself was enough. Suddenly, we went from a good-sounding record to a gorgeous-sounding record. The orchestra was now back behind the speakers, spread out as in a concert hall. The strings were sensuous and airy, without the somewhat off-putting edge of the i. There was more variation in their tone color, as one would hear in a concert hall. I expected to be annoyed by surface noise, but I was not, though I could hear more of it – though overall, there was not much.
I should add here, too, that the occasional nasality in the sound of the i was not present in the x. I assume, then, that it may have been a crossover anomaly.
Scofield/ Metheny (see above)
The x also brought a substantial improvement in the listening experience for this Scofield Metheny recording. As with other records, the instruments largely moved behind the speakers, with improved placement. The drums were now spectacular, with great clarity in the top end, as well as richness to the toms and the bass drum. Bill Stewart is a very imaginative and expressive drummer, but to recognize this, it’s necessary to hear the detail – he will hit whatever he needs to, however he needs to, in order to get his point across.
I could go on, but it would be more of the same about clarity and detail, more delicacy, more realistic attacks/leading edge. But you get the idea – this is simply a notably more satisfactory listen.
Falla, “Nights in the Gardens of Spain” (as above)
The Falla played to all of these things that the 1.7x do superbly. There was a crystalline shimmer to the orchestra and the piano that was missing before that brought much more substantial verisimilitude to the proceedings. A truthfulness that added very substantially to the listening experience. It was not the concert hall. But closer is – usually – much better, of course.
Conclusions
By the time we got to the end of our listening sessions with the 1.7x, the speakers seemed to have really settled in…or my ears had learned to focus on their strong points. In any event, at this point, there was simply no competition: the x were clearly notably superior to, and preferable to, the 1.7i such that if I were considering the 1.7, I would strongly recommend squeezing the additional funds from wherever possible to upgrade to the x. It’s not just a question of gaining greater access to the information on the record (or whatever the source may be). It is the improvement in virtually all areas of the listening experience, particularly in the improved delicacy, space, imaging and ultimately tonal quality of the material.
Likewise. If I were considering the purchase of any Magnepan speaker, I would try to find the funds for the “x” upgrade for that particular model or alternately purchase the model immediately below but with the “x” modifications.
Note: I would like to thank Michael Heusi, the owner of Timbre Audio, for making space and equipment available for these listening comparisons at times when the store is normally closed to customers.