Magnepan MG 1.7 to be debuted at CES

[RGA]

I don't like Maggies, but next time I'm in Toronto, I think I need to audition the 1.7s... Would be interesting to see if these ones could change my mind....

The ridiculous thing about that room at CES (I wonder why Valin didn't point any of it out to his readers) was that they were

A) aided by a center channel - which may or may not have helped the stereo spread - the center channel was in the demo and I felt it had less of the head in the vice grip that all other Magnepans I have auditioned have. Is it that the 1.7 is better at this or is it that the center channel shored up the problem? They had 12-15 chairs in the room and probably needed the center to help out - other designs don't need that.

B) everything was completely controlled by the Magnepan/Bryston presenters - no one got to hear their own music and no one got to play anything with bass, and no one got to play it at anythig above what I would call "low" volume levels. Considering they brought massive SS Bryston's you'd think they'd put on something even remotely challenging. Okay so Slayer may be a bit much but how about a simple piano for heaven sake - they play two 3.5-4 minute pieces of violins - oooh tough - and they sounded a bit wonky and overly trebly to me - but I was in the front row right so because it sounded so off - I got up (probably gave the demonstrators a heart attack) and walked to the back center where it was better.

Interestingly, Ray Kimber brought what he said are the best speakers he has heard up to $25k - and they were Sony "boxed" loudspeakers. And Ray was playing wonderful outdoor recorded drum pieces and various other music at difficult levels with tremendous thunder. He too was not taking requests but he was there promoting his ISOMIKE recordings (2 of which I purchased) and was playing hard to reproduce recordings at high levels.

If you didn't like the 1.6 and you like rock - the 1.7 isn't going to change your mind IMO.

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/...stID=5093#5093

[Feanor]

He may well be gungho, but he's had enough time to determine if he likes them....

I don't like Maggies, but next time I'm in Toronto, I think I need to audition the 1.7s... Would be interesting to see if these ones could change my mind....

Franky, if you don't like the 1.6's you probably won't like the 1.7's.

Then again, set up has to be appropriate for Maggies. This isn't difficult but must be adequate otherwise "results may vary".

[Ajani]

Franky, if you don't like the 1.6's you probably won't like the 1.7's.

Then again, set up has to be appropriate for Maggies. This isn't difficult but must be adequate otherwise "results may vary".

Actually the only ones I've tried are the 12s.... But I'm interested to know if the setup was just off, since I really found the sound to be awful (which is something I've never experienced with HiFi - boring or bright is what I'm used to for gear I don't like, but never awful - so I still wonder if something was wrong with the setup)...

Chances are I may still not like them, but I really want to give maggies another chance to see what they are capable of (since I listen to a wide range of music (including some Classical and Jazz) - there should be something that I think sounds good on them)...

[Ajani]

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/...stID=5093#5093

Good advice... Your insight into Peter Aczel (from an earlier thread) led me to do research on him (as I didn't know the history before)....

As for reviewers, I take all their opinions with a grain of salt... At the end of the day, an opionion is just that; an opinion... So regardless of how knowledgable and experienced a reviewer is, I may totally disagree with his sonic preferences... But I find reviews to be a great starting point for finding products to audition...

[RGA]

Exactly Ajani - the review industry is highly problematic due in part to the structure of the magazines and the honesty of the individual reviewers.

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore on all points he does raise some issue that should be considered when buying into review magazines.

Take the recommended component listing of Stereophile

Under Holt in 1985 there were 9 class A products (combined) in 2000 under Atkinson there were 104 class A recommended components.

"Please consider these statistics carefully. As for myself, I focused on just two obvious and highly relevant details:

In the Summer 1971 issue, there were NO advertisements and 7 components were in "Class A". In the Fall 1985 issue, more than 14 years later, there were still only 9 components in "Class A", despite going from 0 to 47 pages of advertising. However...
J. Gordon Holt was still the Editor during all that time.

Then John Atkinson arrived on the scene.

In short order, there were profound changes, starting from the late 1980's and continuing through the entire 1990's. By April, 1992, there were already 30 components in "Class A". This was just a "warm-up"...

By October 2000, 14 years after Atkinson's arrival, there were 104 components in "Class A". Could there be any "innocent explanations" for this obvious trend? Well, three "excuses" have been used.

Excuse No. 1

The performance of today's components has improved (or "advanced") on those of the past. Assuming that this is a fact, doesn't that mean more components should in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The fact that there were numerous "advancements" is totally irrelevant. This is because each and every new advancement must automatically supercede the previous advancement, or else it wasn't an "advancement" in the first place.

As each new improvement "raises the bar" to get into "Class A", any older model, which can not reach that new "bar", is relegated to "second best", which means they can no longer honestly remain in "Class A", which is supposed to be "the best attainable sound" at that time. Just as the newest, fastest computer chips relegate the older chips to "second fastest or best". Ruthless logic yes, but true when you are talking about "the best".

This principle is the primary reason why all of the numerous, earlier advancements during "The Holt Era", from 1971 to 1985, did NOT result in an increase in the "Class A" recommendations.

Excuse No. 2

There are more components available now than ever before. Doesn't that mean that more components should be in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The best is the best, no matter how many "participants" are competing for that "title".

An Example: There were far more competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics "than ever before", but there were still only 3 medals given out for each event. In pro sports, there is just one "all-star team", no matter how many expansion teams and new players are added.

Stereophile, between 1971 and 1985, faced a huge, relative increase in the available number of components (plus the advent of accepting advertising). Even so, during this entire 14 year period, under J. Gordon Holt's direction, Stereophile went from 7 to only 9 "Class A" components.

This historical fact is the final proof that there is not any "law" or "rule" that the Editor must increase his "Class A" recommendations just because there are a greater variety of components.../...

"Class A"?

In October 2000, there were 46* amplifiers alone in Class A, the so-called "best attainable". There are still dozens as this is written. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest, in every sense of that expression, can claim there are 46 "best" anything's. (Do you know anyone with 46 "best friends"?) All the other Class A component categories have had similar, totally implausible expansions.

Atkinson even created a new Class, "A+", which is even better than "the best"! In all human history, and in all human cultures, it has been philosophically impossible to be better than the best, except in Stereophile. It's not even a rare occurance. In fact, in their April 2003 RCL, there were more Digital Processors in Class A+ (7), than in Class C (2)!

*During the publishing control of J. Gordon Holt, from 1962 all the way to the middle 1970's, the highest number of amplifiers in Class A was 4. The lowest number of amplifiers in Class A was 1. Holt kept only that one single amplifier in Class A even after it was discontinued. This means Holt refused to place even one unworthy component into Class A, because he understood and respected the true meaning of the word "best". Now compare Holt's intellectual integrity to that displayed by John Atkinson." http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html

Now I want to say that I don't agree with Arthur on his attacks of Atkinson (and there is a heavy dose of unsubstantiated and unfair attacks) who very may well feel that such league tables are valuable - it is not dishonesty to have a different view than the guy you replace. Nevertheless, I do agree that having so many "class A" products and rave reviews dilutes what truly is the best of the best.

I think that such a league table would or should operate as a bell curve such that the best of the best would be in the smallest percentile - that's what best is supposed to mean.

Even then it is still just opinion - the best thing to do is find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. I like HE and SET based systems more than big power low efficiency systems and I believe a system should be able to play all music because the stereo should not care what is being played - it's job is to reproduce it. Others do not agree with that assessment and so they should find other reviewers who may offer them better help.

Audio reviewing is not all that different than movie reviewing. No matter what your favorite critic says - you're not going to agree 100% of the time.

Mike at AudioFederation and I agree 100% on Audio Note speakers and systems and many other rooms at CES but he HATED the Sony speakers and didn't like Magico speakers - I felt they were some of the better rooms at CES. The Sony just about made my top 5. So even though I trust Mike's advice - there are some polar opposite views.

I like Gordon's elite listing and I think that over time I may develop such a scheme of ranking. I went to over 70 rooms at CES and I could point to maybe 3 loudspeakers that I felt were true standouts. Then maybe another 10 that were excellent but a step down and then another group of good quality sound but didn't do it for me perhaps at the prices they were charging.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The ridiculous thing about that room at CES (I wonder why Valin didn't point any of it out to his readers) was that they were

A) aided by a center channel - which may or may not have helped the stereo spread - the center channel was in the demo and I felt it had less of the head in the vice grip that all other Magnepans I have auditioned have. Is it that the 1.7 is better at this or is it that the center channel shored up the problem? They had 12-15 chairs in the room and probably needed the center to help out - other designs don't need that.

B) everything was completely controlled by the Magnepan/Bryston presenters - no one got to hear their own music and no one got to play anything with bass, and no one got to play it at anythig above what I would call "low" volume levels. Considering they brought massive SS Bryston's you'd think they'd put on something even remotely challenging. Okay so Slayer may be a bit much but how about a simple piano for heaven sake - they play two 3.5-4 minute pieces of violins - oooh tough - and they sounded a bit wonky and overly trebly to me - but I was in the front row right so because it sounded so off - I got up (probably gave the demonstrators a heart attack) and walked to the back center where it was better.

Interestingly, Ray Kimber brought what he said are the best speakers he has heard up to $25k - and they were Sony "boxed" loudspeakers. And Ray was playing wonderful outdoor recorded drum pieces and various other music at difficult levels with tremendous thunder. He too was not taking requests but he was there promoting his ISOMIKE recordings (2 of which I purchased) and was playing hard to reproduce recordings at high levels.

If you didn't like the 1.6 and you like rock - the 1.7 isn't going to change your mind IMO.

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/...stID=5093#5093

Rich,
What do you think of Kimbers ISOMIKE recordings? I got my hands on a recording of the Blue Knights and Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps called High Altitude Drums. The dynamic range on this recording will blow the hair off of your head!

[RGA]

Yes that happens to be the one Ray was showing with the Sony speakers - I know Sony speakers can you believe it? It was also one of the ones I purchased - I was chatting to the mastering engineer I believe who happens to live about 20 minutes from my place.

This is why I made an exception for Ray Kimber because while he controlled the music - he at least played demanding music. And the Sony speakers with Pass Labs amps and EMM front end was certainly one of the ten best rooms at the show. I think I had the room just out of my top five but it was very very close.

There were quite a lot of nice sounding rooms - it would have been nice to go in with these recordings to put some of them to a more demanding test than Dianna Krall and the various male vocal equivalents of Dianna Krall.

It is certainly a nice test for bass and dynamics and at volume.

[Ajani]

Exactly Ajani - the review industry is highly problematic due in part to the structure of the magazines and the honesty of the individual reviewers.

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore on all points he does raise some issue that should be considered when buying into review magazines.

Take the recommended component listing of Stereophile

Under Holt in 1985 there were 9 class A products (combined) in 2000 under Atkinson there were 104 class A recommended components.

"Please consider these statistics carefully. As for myself, I focused on just two obvious and highly relevant details:

In the Summer 1971 issue, there were NO advertisements and 7 components were in "Class A". In the Fall 1985 issue, more than 14 years later, there were still only 9 components in "Class A", despite going from 0 to 47 pages of advertising. However...
J. Gordon Holt was still the Editor during all that time.

Then John Atkinson arrived on the scene.

In short order, there were profound changes, starting from the late 1980's and continuing through the entire 1990's. By April, 1992, there were already 30 components in "Class A". This was just a "warm-up"...

By October 2000, 14 years after Atkinson's arrival, there were 104 components in "Class A". Could there be any "innocent explanations" for this obvious trend? Well, three "excuses" have been used.

Excuse No. 1

The performance of today's components has improved (or "advanced") on those of the past. Assuming that this is a fact, doesn't that mean more components should in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The fact that there were numerous "advancements" is totally irrelevant. This is because each and every new advancement must automatically supercede the previous advancement, or else it wasn't an "advancement" in the first place.

As each new improvement "raises the bar" to get into "Class A", any older model, which can not reach that new "bar", is relegated to "second best", which means they can no longer honestly remain in "Class A", which is supposed to be "the best attainable sound" at that time. Just as the newest, fastest computer chips relegate the older chips to "second fastest or best". Ruthless logic yes, but true when you are talking about "the best".

This principle is the primary reason why all of the numerous, earlier advancements during "The Holt Era", from 1971 to 1985, did NOT result in an increase in the "Class A" recommendations.

Excuse No. 2

There are more components available now than ever before. Doesn't that mean that more components should be in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The best is the best, no matter how many "participants" are competing for that "title".

An Example: There were far more competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics "than ever before", but there were still only 3 medals given out for each event. In pro sports, there is just one "all-star team", no matter how many expansion teams and new players are added.

Stereophile, between 1971 and 1985, faced a huge, relative increase in the available number of components (plus the advent of accepting advertising). Even so, during this entire 14 year period, under J. Gordon Holt's direction, Stereophile went from 7 to only 9 "Class A" components.

This historical fact is the final proof that there is not any "law" or "rule" that the Editor must increase his "Class A" recommendations just because there are a greater variety of components.../...

"Class A"?

In October 2000, there were 46* amplifiers alone in Class A, the so-called "best attainable". There are still dozens as this is written. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest, in every sense of that expression, can claim there are 46 "best" anything's. (Do you know anyone with 46 "best friends"?) All the other Class A component categories have had similar, totally implausible expansions.

Atkinson even created a new Class, "A+", which is even better than "the best"! In all human history, and in all human cultures, it has been philosophically impossible to be better than the best, except in Stereophile. It's not even a rare occurance. In fact, in their April 2003 RCL, there were more Digital Processors in Class A+ (7), than in Class C (2)!

*During the publishing control of J. Gordon Holt, from 1962 all the way to the middle 1970's, the highest number of amplifiers in Class A was 4. The lowest number of amplifiers in Class A was 1. Holt kept only that one single amplifier in Class A even after it was discontinued. This means Holt refused to place even one unworthy component into Class A, because he understood and respected the true meaning of the word "best". Now compare Holt's intellectual integrity to that displayed by John Atkinson." http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html

Now I want to say that I don't agree with Arthur on his attacks of Atkinson (and there is a heavy dose of unsubstantiated and unfair attacks) who very may well feel that such league tables are valuable - it is not dishonesty to have a different view than the guy you replace. Nevertheless, I do agree that having so many "class A" products and rave reviews dilutes what truly is the best of the best.

I think that such a league table would or should operate as a bell curve such that the best of the best would be in the smallest percentile - that's what best is supposed to mean.

Even then it is still just opinion - the best thing to do is find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. I like HE and SET based systems more than big power low efficiency systems and I believe a system should be able to play all music because the stereo should not care what is being played - it's job is to reproduce it. Others do not agree with that assessment and so they should find other reviewers who may offer them better help.

Audio reviewing is not all that different than movie reviewing. No matter what your favorite critic says - you're not going to agree 100% of the time.

Mike at AudioFederation and I agree 100% on Audio Note speakers and systems and many other rooms at CES but he HATED the Sony speakers and didn't like Magico speakers - I felt they were some of the better rooms at CES. The Sony just about made my top 5. So even though I trust Mike's advice - there are some polar opposite views.

I like Gordon's elite listing and I think that over time I may develop such a scheme of ranking. I went to over 70 rooms at CES and I could point to maybe 3 loudspeakers that I felt were true standouts. Then maybe another 10 that were excellent but a step down and then another group of good quality sound but didn't do it for me perhaps at the prices they were charging.

I responded to this point in a new thread I just started in the General Section:

What would make HiFi Reviews (more) useful?