Magnepan 1.7

A couple of friends and I auditioned the 1.7s in Austin last weekend. We all had the same conclusion; a rather cold and sterile sounding speaker. Probably more detailed than the 1.6s they replaced (we've all owned the MMS, MG 12s, 1.6s and the 3 series before so have a lot of experience with Maggies) but not musically involving. Hard to put a finger on it. Could have been the room or associated electronics but definitely advise auditioning before buying.

Texas42

Are you or any of your friends dealers or have any commercial affiliations by any chance?

No, I am not a dealer, etc. I am on a quest for better speakers to complement the rest of my system. Therefore, my question.

to Darkkeys: I think Cwlondon was asking the question of texas42, and not of Darkkeys. (Because of the tone of the texas42 response.) I would just say if it was a 1.7 they auditioned, it had to be nearly brand new. I OWN nearly new (on month old) Magnepan 3.6s.. so i am a bit biased. But any Maggie I have heard at first fired up will sound harsh.. takes an hour or so to mellow out. Once used and broken in, this HF harshness really goes away.
(I 'almost' waited for the new 1.7s myself.. but i wanted the 3.6s and they will not get an update for at least a year, maybe years..)

I heard a short demo of them on Naim gear, speakers were 3-4 feet from the back wall, about 7.5 feet apart and toed in a good bit. I just heard a few Norah Jones songs (20 minutes worth) I know pretty well. I have demoed the 3.6 and 20.1 at length but have never heard the 1.6.

All in all I though they sounded pretty good. They had a lot more bass power than I thought they would. They were also pretty detailed and the detail in the bass seemed exceptional. I heard the 3.6 on a Mcintosh 252 the week before (also played some Norah Jones) and I do not recall it being as detailed in the bass. These were different systems for take that comment with a glass of salt.

The highs are going to be a little forward for a lot of peoples' tastes. I like the tonal balance but I like my gear really neutral. I liked the highs and they had good detail but they were not as integrated as I expected. I read Jonathan Valin's (from the absolute sound) short review on Avguide where he describes them as if they are as seamless as a pair of Sennheiser headphones... I would have to disagree (could have been room/gear). I could clearly tell where the highs were coming from and where they separated from the midrange. But the rest of his comments seem pretty accurate to the way they sound

The mids seem a lot like the 3.6s to me. They still had the larger than life vocal staging. It is nice but a unrealistic at the same time.

They looked much better than the older 1.6 with the metal trim and all in all I would buy a pair. I don't know that they would be my mainstay but it would be fun to swap them out with my boxes (Thiel CS2.4) from time to time.