The Ribbon and the ESL- what a hard choice

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
G’day mates! From the land down unda, like no other.
Had a busy period during the first quarter of 2016, too many deadlines to meet, and now all is well and accomplished. To top it all up, two birthdays and valentines during the month of Feb, and now I’m totally broke and looking mighty fine so far!
During the “broke” month of the year, my Quads once again hit the service dept (for third annoying time); now a small fuse and some diodes that apparently failed due to hot weather… whatever.

In the meantime I must report a superb discovery, and when I say “superb” not only referring to the overall sound but also “superb value” from mid-end to high-end- Introducing the MG 3.7i- wow!

Ok, the MG20.7 is obviously the clean winner here in terms of the maggie line up. However, I never realized just how good these are until I heard them properly set up. Main listening room dimensions- 10ftH x 16ftW x 35ftL (the ideal set up for big maggies). Panels placed around 6ft away from the front wall, slight toe-in towards the listening position, around 8ft apart (with tweeters to the inside) and around 2-3ft from the side walls. Listening position 16ft away, ample space behind the seating. Behind was filled with shelves of vinyl (majority were LP’s no doubt). Plenty of CD’s, mostly classical. Other accessories of various gear including vintage amps or should I say top-end stuff during the hay day. Once beautiful sounding, plain looking amp was an old Adcom GF series, and a huge pair of Parasound mono blocks. To another side was an old NAD THX approved amp, another big affair, plus an old Gerrad TT & a Thorens in repairs. The explanation for the old stuff was basically cannot part with any of them since they all have a sonic attribute with a sense of quality for what they’re worth. Did try selling at various points, no luck since many offers were just hagglers, not realizing the true potential of each. Therefore, the gear continues to lie silently waiting for “Mr/Mrs Right”…

Main system: power amps- PASS X.250’s, and ARC Ref 150. Preamps- C2500, and ARC Ref-6. Source TT: Rega RP8 & Michel Gyrodec, with the Rega Aria phono stage (awesome little phono stage btw). Digital sources were not used, although I did see an ARC Ref CD8 and a vintage Marantz CD17 in mint condition. The chap prefers to play LP’s due to the wider selection of labels on hand, plus some of the CD’s don’t tend to read or takes a long time to load. There were other speakers parked off to one side way at the back of the room, Martin Logan Monolith’s, Quad ESL63, and a pair of MG3.5/R in mint condition. Apart from the Monolith’s, I have owned exactly the same Maggies and Quads before, so I was really going bonkers when I stumbled upon these gems!

Findings: the majority of my listening was not done during one visit, rather over a period of time from around Jan ending up till now. I plan to head there this weekend again, to get a dose of digital playback. It was very interesting to learn of different sounds coming from pre-power combinations off the same pair of panels. For example, for a more solid powerful dynamic presentation, the Pass X amps with the C2500 was very impressive. For a more relaxed sound, I enjoyed the ARC Ref 150 with the ARC Ref 6. I asked the chap why he preferred the C2500 to the more “matching” solid state preamps for the Pass amps; his answer was simple, put in a high quality tube pre with the Pass amps and you can tame the sound to be relaxing, yet explosive when required. He also got a dam good deal on the C2500 after trading his CJ CT5 preamp.
At one point he did also try bi-amping the 3.7i as he had done so with the MG3.5/R. His findings were such; compared to the bi-amp config of the MG3.5/R that worked fairly well, the overall synergy of one pre-power combination & 3.7i was far more cohesive, focused and imaging was outstanding with a superb soundstage that fit well together without added gimmicks. I didn’t get the chance to listen to the older MG3.5/R’s in bi-amp mode but I have owned these panels before, and have bi-amped myself. I actually preferred using just the one CJ Premier 11A to drive the maggies at the time.

All in all, I’m a tube fanatic but I can clearly see where the Pass amps excel in critical areas when driving large panels. Having said that, I just had to ask about the one critical area that I'm passionate about- “how good is the midrange, compared to the Quads?” His answer was, “well you cannot beat that Quad midrange, just more open and transparent to near perfection of the real thing.” And that’s about it! Of course when it comes to bass and top end, the ribbon tweeter has no comparison, and the ribbon bass, when driven properly can be quite remarkable, to the point that it is actually highly addictive when getting used to. It is faster and does have a more dynamic slam compared to ESL bass.
Funny thing though I must admit, on specs, the maggie’s low frequency just touches around the 35hz to 37hz mark, whereas the Quad ESL 2905/2912 can go down to 30hz and sometimes to 28hz, I can also feel that extra detail on certain recordings. However, when listening to the 3.7i or the MG20.7 for that matter, the bass sort of hits you sharply and then progresses onto the next couple of notes, it doesn’t have that “drummy” bass effect of an ESL. Another major difference is that the ribbon panels “push” a fair amount of air into the listening area, whereas ESL’s do not push major air. They merely “respond” spontaneously to the signal with a sense of effortlessness. And I guess this is what makes them more relaxing in the midrange, therefore due to this very trait, they will not push much air in the bass region.

In summary: I really enjoyed the MG3.7i as I had done so on many occasions equally with the MG20.7. The major point I was trying to learn is that these big maggies eventually do need to have some hefty beef power to drive them, either around the 150 to 200w/ch mark on tubes and 250 plus on solid state with high current capability. What I want to know is whether a humble tube 60 watter could create some magic with the 3.7i, and so I’m taking along my CJ Classic 60SE for a spin on the maggie track once again. Couple decades ago, I did enjoy very much the Prem 11A with the MG3.5/R within limits. Then again, my listening levels are nowhere close to loud. I have a feeling that it might just work, however I also know that the CJ + Quad midrange magic is so dam hard to beat, including that expansive 3D soundstage.

Which system is so called better: for a high-quality, true value top of the line sound, from a well reputed brand/long standing ribbon producer, I must say the MG3.7i is one outstanding speaker system (also to mention the MG20.7 is simply superb). For such a system to work to its full potential, you must have the amps lined up to the task, no point trying to cut down on amplification with large ribbons. On a more positive comparison, Quads or other ESL’s may not require larger amplifiers but they do require very stable power supplies/current due to their nature of being reactive loads. I have witnessed far too many SS amps go up in smoke or simply shut down when driving ESL’s. I for one could happily live with the MG3.7i without any qualms but I will miss that Quad pristine midrange that they are known for. So no matter how many times they fail or break and end up in service, they will always be my overall favourite speaker.

Cheers to those who currently own or are aspiring to own the MG3.7i- you won’t be disappointed! Please do remember to have an amplifier up to the task. That 3.7i is extremely tempting...
Have a very good one, RJ.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,439
13,468
2,710
London
What Joel (a 6 moons reviewer on this forum) told me is that Maggie's shouldn't be driven by an amp with too high a damping factor as the panel needs to move a bit to have more bass. I am itching to hear the 20.7

You should listen to Acoustats for more bass and dynamics than Quads. Used price is less than $2k.
 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
Glad you liked the Magnepans! I got a pair of MG-I's back in 1979, followed by a pair of MG-IIIa's in 1988 that live in my system today.

Note the 3's and 20's use a true ribbon tweeter but the mid/bass panels are more conventional planar dynamic, though now Magnepan has thinned them and called them quasi-ribbon panels. Also note the 20's use push-pull drive (magnets on both sides) which provides (at least theoretically) greater linear dynamic range and potentially higher sensitivity. A full-range true ribbon speaker is expensive to produce and suffers from other issues (though Apogee's sounded really good to me!)

I have bi-amped mine, and both bi- and tri-amped a number of (for) others, but these days am quite happy to be driving them with a single amplifier. While I loved the sound bi-amped with an ARC D-79 on top and Counterpoint SA-220 below, it was a lot of hassle for very minimal gain IMO, and when the ARC lost some tubes (again!) I stuck with one amp. No worries about integrating the sound of two amplifiers nor fussing with the crossover (I used a variety over the years, including tube, SS, and passive, and various crossover frequencies and slopes, some asymmetric). I prefer higher crossover slopes than Magnepan generally used, but ultimately decided for me the best sound wsa from a big amp and mated with a good sub (or four, in my case).

In contrast to bonzo75's experience I much prefer a low-impedance output (high damping factor) to control the panels. The Maggies present a nearly resistive load, true, but modes can develop in the panels and I found the bass to be much, much better with a good SS amplifier. The impulse response is also much better if you are into measurements (OK, taboo on WBF, but I like them, and in this case they back up the sound I prefer). That big ribbon tweeter will expose any HF flaws in your system, however, and dips to 3 ohms or so at HF. Relative low impedance combined with low sensitivity means they do like some power, though I happily lived with a 75 W/channel tube amp for many years in a modest room.

They are very finicky about placement, as are any dipoles, and I have always preferred to dampen the back wave to eliminate (or at least reduce) comb filter effects. They tend to radiate straight forward (and bacK) over most of their frequency range (until bass wavelengths exceed panel size'ish), thus are less sensitive to side wall and floor/ceiling treatment. Their directionality also helps improve their effective sensitivity (which is low regardless) since more energy is directed at the listener.

Enjoy! - Don
 

Barry

Member Sponsor
Jan 7, 2012
273
54
1,220
Somewhere near Philadelphia, USA
Love planars. My Magnepan 3.6s don't sound even remotely like the stock ones. The hi/mid pass internal 3.6 XO has been replaced with Duelund Cast caps and inductors that cost more than the speakers and all the drivers have been rewired with Neotech cryo'd pure copper. The 3.6 bass panels and the subs are crossed over to their amps via a Pass Labs XVR-1- 3 way and all channels are gain level matched with a DVM and test signal for perfect integration. 2 custom hybrid Counterpoint amps @ 440 watts/ channel (total 880watts per side) drive the panels and a big Krell drives the Kinergetic subs. The subs are equalized with DSP and room EQ Wizard to provide a flat in room response down to 15 Hz without adding any digital artifacts to the main panels. The speaker placement was done with a laser distance meter which greatly improves the sound stage. Sounds nice.....

rsz_img_9881.jpg
 
Last edited:

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
Hey mate, how's it going? Trust all is well at your end of the woods.
Yes, totally agree on the Quads. Although I love them and have a true passion for that midrange, I'm starting to get really annoyed especially after the third visit to the service depo. The other major annoying factor is that the mg3.7i or mg3.7 costs less than the quads by a fair margin. The Quads now retail for nearly 20 grand in Australia and the maggies are half that! The mg20.7 is about 20 and I paid close to that for my quads back in 2011. This is really starting to hurt.

Therefore, I can't sell them off now it's too late. I won't get anywhere close to half of what I've paid. I will keep these and one thing for sure is I'm keeping a close eye on the top line Maggie models. It would be very interesting to see what comes after the 20.7 that's when I'll make a move. Till then no worries at all, just enjoying the cj+quad musicality for now. Who knows what they'll have down the line.

As far as amplification is concerned, I will partner the MC452 with my Act2, that is one awesome combination. Reminds me of cj's premier350, expect without the wonderful cosmetics.
Cheers Bonzo, have a good one. Hope you get to listen to the mg20.7 properly set up and most of all, properly driven.
 

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
Hey Barry, that setup looks stunning!
Bet you're having the most wonderful "absolute sound".
I used many iterations of maggies in the past and nearly ended up with the mg20. When decided to go for the esl 2905. And now I'm thinking of going full circle again!
I'm not in a hurry at all. Perhaps in the next few years, just want to see what comes up after the 20.7
Enjoy mate, and have a good one.
RJ
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Barry, your system looks fantastic!

At what frequency do you cross over to the Kinergetic woofer towers?
 

Barry

Member Sponsor
Jan 7, 2012
273
54
1,220
Somewhere near Philadelphia, USA
Hi Ron. I originally I crossed the subs over (Hi & Lo pass) at ~55Hz & 18dB/octave. The subs integrated well.

I then bought the DSPeaker Dual Core Antimode 2 (a DSP engine, like mini-DSP) and added Room EQ Wizard (frequency response, waterfall decay, group delay, and RT60). Using REW analysis tools, I could now see the entire system in-room response across several parameters. There was opportunity for improvement.

After testing several XO options and viewing results, it became apparent that a crossover at 88Hz and 24dB/octave was better. The higher XO allowed me to equalize just the subs to smooth out the entire system frequency response and reduce excessive room decay all the way out to 250Hz. The exact crossover frequency response I used could have been anywhere around 80Hz - it wasn't that critical. The bass response is not actually flat but rises about +3 dB from 200 Hz by design.

The end result sounds better. The main speakers are all analog with no added digital making things more opaque. The higher XO Fq does not muddy up the bass. While the subs and mains are not time-aligned this way, at these low frequencies, I can't hear it.
 
Last edited:

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
Hey Don,
I must say those MGIIIa's are superb value! After owning several pairs of maggies back in hometown, migration to Aus land involved selling off everything I had. Therefore, had to start from scratch beginning 2005. Somewhere around 08/09 I got hold of a carefully used pair of mgIIIa's and that was wonderful until that silly "upgrade" mindset kicked in and the vicious cycle begins. ..
Had the means of going mg20 but opted for Quads mainly because I didn't have big amps to drive a maggie properly. Compared to the mgIIIa, the Quads certainly proved to be a serious improvement but the question remains at what cost? Especially Australia, high end is big bucks. You have to be earning top dollar compared to the US market. Back in the good old student life in Chicago, I used to own krell and martin Logan's, so affordable even as a student. A system like that over here would cost a fortune, let alone on the used market.

After extensively listening to the newer series, mg20.7 & mg 3.7's, I can see that the tech chaps at magnepan have done some committed work on these designs to ensure they deliver near perfection. You really cannot fault it, and what hits the home run is the cost, I don't think there's anything out there that can compete in this price range.
Sheer marvelous!
Enjoy your maggies to the fullest. Have a good one, RJ
 

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
If I've heard them all which I haven't but have certainly heard some ultra high end systems, all I can say is that the mg20.7 properly driven kicks some vert serious butt!
 

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
After three long weekends, the verdict is…

Several trips back & forth to the heavenly place of ribbons, with my humble Classic 60SE in hand, for a spin on the MG3.7i’s. I wasn’t expecting much in terms of adequate-drive, punch, musicality and finesse compared to the more powerful SS contenders, such as the MC452 and Pass Labs X series but Oh! Wow was I wrong!

Now, I’m not stating that a good high current 60 watt tube amp is the best in terms of “drive capability” for a large ribbon transducer. However, with just 60watts of pure push-pull KT120 power, the bass is very dynamic & fast, quick transients, with an outstanding midrange compared to my Quads. What I also noticed is the overall smoothness of the top end- not too edgy, and not too bright, as cj would say “just sounds right!” Other great match ups on the 3.7i were the bigger VTL’s and of course the ARC Ref 150, with superb authority and control, probably brought out the best in ribbons, I do prefer tubes though.

On further comparison, I also noticed certain bass notes do go lower on the Quads; I can still feel all the subtle nuances of the lower registers when driven with just the Classic 60SE. The MC452 & Pass mono’s brought the best out of the stats but this increase of power output wasn’t really necessary for their full potential. The MG20.7 in comparison does go lower than all of them. To me, the ribbon bass did feel more powerful with a formidable impact that you can really feel. It sort of accelerates out with a real “whack” and solid thump, and then moves on very quickly with the mid-band taking over. It’s a bit difficult to explain, perhaps when auditioning stats and ribbons side by side, one can notice the difference in bass right away, along with much higher efficiency off the ribbon tweeter.

To sum it up these were my observations:
1. In terms of quicker bass and extended highs, with an excellent balance in the midrange, the MG3.7i is certainly a superb pair of panels for their value. I cannot think of any other panel type speaker, other than of course the current MG line up, that can out match the 3.7i full range - no subs please.

2. I could very easily get used to these new panels, as they have improved by a FAR margin compared to the previous 3-series, several of which I have owned.

3. Considering solid state, I did enjoy the MC452 and Pass X250’s on the 3.7i’s compared to these amps driving stats. The overall sound off the ribbons was excellent, superb dynamics, great transient control, fantastic start/stop acceleration, and that level of realism was very apparent. Certainly a sound that is enjoyable for lengthy auditions, and not just demo’s.

4. However, after trying out the MC452 and Pass X amps on the Quads, I began to realize that the overall sound was not as musical and relaxing compared to tubes driving stats. Perhaps, I’m just a tube fan; I did miss that warmth, although I really enjoyed SS with ribbons!

5. Perhaps a SS power amp plus tube pre would be the best equation compared to an all tube line up, difficult to judge one over the other with endless possibilities, I just don’t know.
Once thing for sure is these are totally different systems. If you are after that sheer level of realism, the absolute sound with outstanding value, I highly recommend the new maggie line up, and the 3.7i’s. For those who want even more resolution and greater impact for larger rooms, and being able to afford, would find the MG20.7 to be the best buy.

Therefore, in this regard, the Quad ESL 2905 or 2912, are definitely not value for money. I am not sure about the US, European and Asian markets but in Australia these stats are expensive compared to other panels available over here. On the other side of the fence- the transparency in midrange, the openness throughout the mid-band, a sense of endless depth, imaging and placement of the soundstage- the Quads have it, and that’s what they’re known for. I have tried nearly every powerful SS amp I could get my hands on including cj’s very own premier 350 (nearly as powerful as the MC452 & with greater musicality), none of them could deliver what tube amps could do with these stats, regardless of output power.

In fact, the most musical sounding ones for me, have been those low-moderate powered amps, with EL34’s, SET designs, 300B’s, moderately powered KT series & 6550 power pentodes. The amps that I have auditioned or owned around the 50 to 70 watt class have been more “musical sounding” compared to their much larger counterparts. I don’t know what it is but to me a simple stereo tube amp that is moderately powered, capable of driving your favourite speakers to a desired level of total enjoyment/satisfaction is all you really need.

The Classic 60SE was able to drive the 3.7i with adequate power for my listening levels, which mostly happens during midnight. It’s that midrange and depth from the Quads that is very addictive and captivating. The ribbon panel does have an equal sort of depth but is very different being a line source with quite a different dispersion pattern. I don’t think one is better than the other it’s a matter of personal preference. Whiles listening to the MG3.7i I did not miss the Quad sound, apart from that more open midrange. The MG3.7i does have a pristine midrange that was very enjoyable driven with all three types of amps- MC452, Pass X250’s & the Classic 60SE (on paper it would seem a very unfair comparison for this little 60 watter but in sound it certainly wasn’t!).

If I was to decide between having either the MG3.7i or Quads, I would find that to be an extremely hard choice. Both types of panels are superb in what they can do. Both types certainly have limitations and they do require different match ups in terms of best/suited amplification. Keeping that in mind, the biggest one factor is that the 3.7i is around half the price of the current Quad 2912 that is offered in Australia, therefore which system would I choose- the maggies of course!

Comparing these amplifiers respective of weight in tube power, then I would have wanted to try an ARC Ref250 or the big VTL’s or cj’s ART monoblocks for that matter. Any of these much larger tube amps would have outclassed these SS devices by a substantial margin.
At the end of the day, I still prefer listening through stats with a decent TT & all tube amplification. Regardless of the source used, whether it was TT or digital, the openness of stats is truly remarkable in the midrange. I also believe if they were solely designed for greater bass & dynamics, the mid range would not be so open/ transparent. I don’t see how Quad could improve on that area of extended bass unless like Martin Logan or other designs, Sanders etc., they were to add a bass driver. Then again, this wouldn’t be full range.

In summary, the MG3.7i to me is a great ribbon speaker to have for that overall level of realism effect & presence. Even in a much smaller room, a moderate tube amp would be adequate for low to moderate listening, with a top-notch musicality factor that SS amps don’t quite match up according to my preference. Others would obviously have different points of view, I was fortunate enough to audition all three amps on my own system and directly compare these on ribbons. The only one thing I couldn’t do was actually have the MG20.7 at home! Now that would have certainly been an experience with the much larger tube amp offerings. I could certainly see the MG20.7 and cj ART mono’s being the ultimate for me.

As for now, I’m just going to sit back and enjoy what’s on deck, after all that is what I currently have, might as well enjoy it to the fullest!
Thanks for reading and Cheers to all, RJ.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Big Dog,

Fantastic "review" and great to read! Sounds like a great 3 weekends, with a lot of careful listening. This is a great post which i suspect i will come back to from time to time, particularly when next i have the opportunity to hear panels. I still remembering hearing one of the Maggie 3 generation back in the 90s and being incredibly impressed, and they have no doubt come a long way since then. I also remember being blown away by the Apogee Stages. And as you know, i have sat side by side and done various shootouts with the Quad 2905 and its bigger brother a few years ago when i was thinking of buying them.

If you had to set aside money for just a second, which speaker do you prefer on an absolute basis? Maggie 3.7 or the big Quad?
 

Big Dog RJ

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,242
463
1,155
Melbourne
Hey mate, glad you liked the post . I was wondering whether it was too long but there was so much I experienced just had make a note of everything encountered between these two panels.

Your end question is certainly a tough one.
Leaving aside the amplification because this is one factor that changed the overall sound not so much the source and accessories;

I would have two answers to this:
1. If you're after a very well balanced sound, capable of delivering top notch dynamics, super fast transients, plenty of good depth, great imaging and very fast tight bass plus for a very reasonable cost I would have to take my hat off to the mg3.7i or even the mg20.7 for that matter (provided the amplification is up to the task).

2. If you're after a totally relaxing presence, one that hugs you all round, superb depth imaging and a pristine sound stage along with a very well balanced bottom end to top end (nothing overpowering), plus probably one of the best midband frequency you would ever experience, which you can listen to for endless hours with absolutely zero fatigue, and does not require heavy amplification, hats off to Quads.

Around 5-6 years ago the 2905 was retailing nearly similar to the mg3.6, with perhaps 2-3 grand more on the Quads depending on finish. Now it is 2016, the new Quad is out and costs nearly 24 grand! For that same cost you can get hold of a brand new pair of mg20.7's

Back in the hay day (around the 50's/60's) when the first series of Quads were introduced by Peter Walker, Quads were never supposed to be priced exorbitantly. Fast fwd 20 plus years and they were still superb value for money. Fast fwd another 20-30 years and they suddenly cost nearly the same as those very expensive categories of speakers. This is where the problem lies. If they cost over 20, to that product should last at least 10 years before it hits the service department. Mine were only 2-3 years of usage and have been to service on 4 bloody occasions! When I had maggies, I never had this problem, other than a tweeter replacement after 5 years...

Final answer: I would have to take not only my hat off but probably my clothes too (not a pretty sight, so the wife says, whatever. ..) to the maggie line up. Starting from the very smallest one .6 to 1.7 & all the way up to the mg20.7, driven properly they are simply superb ribbons. If the quads were at half that price then werw talking a realistic comparison. I don't know what you would pay for a 2912 in the US market, I'm sure that the maggies are more competitive.

Since I already have the quads, my second panel would obviously be the mg3.7i no doubt. Hope that makes sense of it all.
Cheers and have a good one, RJ
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing