Magnepan 20.1

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Neil H

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Location
Australia
Wondering if anyone has listened to the Magnepan 20.1. What were your impressions and how did it compare to comparable priced Martin Logans.

A lot of people in my audio club love magnepans but none have this larger version.
 
I loved them. I thought they were very three dimensional and imaged
like a beast. I don't think they are as dynamic as the logans but
the arguement is always made that they sound more real.
Honestly I'm not sure what I prefer. The soundstage and scale is spot
on IMHO
 
I have only heard them once, and thought they were incredible. They need a lot of power and a big room. But they produce a wall of sound on a scale unlike any of the modern Logans.
 
I'm in totall agreement with timm and Rich. Myself a prior 3.6 owner could easily go back to Maggie's in a heartbeat. To this day I don't think I've heard a better 'bang for the buck' than a pair of 1.6's matched up with a competent sub !!
 
I loved them. I thought they were very three dimensional and imaged
like a beast. I don't think they are as dynamic as the logans but
the arguement is always made that they sound more real.
Honestly I'm not sure what I prefer. The soundstage and scale is spot
on IMHO

I agree with this description. I heard these while auditioning the Pass Labs 250.5. Definitely detailed and a very nicely presented soundstage. Although I was auditioning the amp, it was the speakers I was hearing as well. Not as dynamic and of course they did not have the authority of the bottom octave as I would like to feel (not exaggerated) rather than hear. This is obvious and expected knowing the all panel design. I would suspect someone with my listening preferences would pair them up with subwoofers for the type of music and impact I like. Really if you are in the market for this pair of speakers you're probably on the lines of ML CLS, CLX and intend to use them as an all panel reproducer without augmentation from a cone sub woofer driver. Very detailed and clear otherwise, they played well at low listening levels as well as higher levels but still without the dynamic impact from the lowest octave, 20 to 40Hz. Piano or vocals, awesome, shortfall: rock or progressive rock or jazz, I like to feel the bass. I prefer my ML Requests’ and Descent sub for my listening preferences.
 
I have only heard them once, and thought they were incredible. They need a lot of power and a big room. But they produce a wall of sound on a scale unlike any of the modern Logans.

Interested in knowing what you would classify as a big room.
 
Interested in knowing what you would classify as a big room.

I guess it is all relative, isn't it? My current listening room (with Summits) is 14' by 19' and I consider that to be medium sized. I would think it is too small for the 20.1's to perform their best. I would think something along the lines of 18' by 25' or larger would be more suitable for these speakers. Of course, this is all just my conjecture based on hearing them once years ago (and that was in a room that was probably 30' by 40' or bigger).
 
Right on, 18 x 25 would be nice for the 20.1's or similarly sized speaker Rich. That would give you plenty of room to bring them out form the wall behind them as well as the sides and enough room to position your listening sofa/chair far enough from the wall behind it to avoid being in the reverberant field.
 
I agree with this description. I heard these while auditioning the Pass Labs 250.5. Definitely detailed and a very nicely presented soundstage. Although I was auditioning the amp, it was the speakers I was hearing as well. Not as dynamic and of course they did not have the authority of the bottom octave as I would like to feel (not exaggerated) rather than hear. This is obvious and expected knowing the all panel design. I would suspect someone with my listening preferences would pair them up with subwoofers for the type of music and impact I like. Really if you are in the market for this pair of speakers you're probably on the lines of ML CLS, CLX and intend to use them as an all panel reproducer without augmentation from a cone sub woofer driver. Very detailed and clear otherwise, they played well at low listening levels as well as higher levels but still without the dynamic impact from the lowest octave, 20 to 40Hz. Piano or vocals, awesome, shortfall: rock or progressive rock or jazz, I like to feel the bass. I prefer my ML Requests’ and Descent sub for my listening preferences.

yes -- when I heard them - I had on jazz / a terrible santana recording (i always play it to see what the speaker does with it / think the guy put on 'Best of War' on LP - which was a very nice sounding record with a lot of complex things going on... I put on some better recorded 'rock' albums (think something like Jack Johnson) -- but nothing that was going to just rock the house (like zepplin or any synth) I remember walking in between the speakers looking around... looking for something else... The depth of the vocal was incredible....FWIW - I had listened to the Summits at another store just prior...both sounded good - but something about those 20.1s...Given that I am an admitted Logan bigot .. I felt it was a tough choice - and would probably need a very nice A/B listening session to determine which sound I liked better.
 
Just spent an evening with a friends 20.1's with gear I was very familiar with.

The 20.1 is a great speaker. It has a slightly more "diffuse" overall presentation than the CLX, but by itself has better, deeper bass response. Personally, I'd still use a sub with the 20.1's, but you don't need one. You really need a good sub (or pair of subs) with the CLX.

The CLX has more resolution and more dynamics than the 20.1, but I would not say the 20.1 has a "bigger" presentation than the CLX, I'd say they are pretty equally matched in that department.

Also, the 20.1 is less than half the price of the CLX.

However, as mentioned here, the 20.1's really need a lot of juice to rock out. You can't have too big of an amplifier to drive them, while the CLX will do fine with a good high current amplifier capable of 100wpc or more. (though even the CLX does better with more power)

It's a very different presentation. I could live happily ever after with either, but I'd suggest an audition before buying either. You might really dig one more than the other.
 
Just spent an evening with a friends 20.1's with gear I was very familiar with.

The 20.1 is a great speaker. It has a slightly more "diffuse" overall presentation than the CLX, but by itself has better, deeper bass response. Personally, I'd still use a sub with the 20.1's, but you don't need one. You really need a good sub (or pair of subs) with the CLX.

The CLX has more resolution and more dynamics than the 20.1, but I would not say the 20.1 has a "bigger" presentation than the CLX, I'd say they are pretty equally matched in that department.

Also, the 20.1 is less than half the price of the CLX.

However, as mentioned here, the 20.1's really need a lot of juice to rock out. You can't have too big of an amplifier to drive them, while the CLX will do fine with a good high current amplifier capable of 100wpc or more. (though even the CLX does better with more power)

It's a very different presentation. I could live happily ever after with either, but I'd suggest an audition before buying either. You might really dig one more than the other.

Thanks for the good summary of your impressions. Would be interested to know what size room you heard them in. My room is about 22' X 17" with a lot of floor to ceiling bass traps. Not sure how this would suit.
 
Thanks for the good summary of your impressions. Would be interested to know what size room you heard them in. My room is about 22' X 17" with a lot of floor to ceiling bass traps. Not sure how this would suit.

I'm thinking your room may be just barely big enough for these speakers. Any chance of auditioning them in-room before you purchase? If room size is your only limiting factor, I would say go for it. If your room was any smaller, I would recommend otherwise. But I think you will be alright with that size.
 
I'm curious about Magnepan 20.1s, having never heard any. Very limited over here.

Broadly speaking, what do they most sound like? For instance, are they anything like the Apogee Diva, for those with long memories?
 
i haven't heard the 20.1s but i have heard the 3.6s....with the
right amplification, they sound the most like "live" music in my
opinion...at least for speakers up to 10k, maybe even 15k...

Another speaker... i really liked the 14k Acoustic Zen Crescendos
when i heard them at RMAF last year...not crazy about the available
finishes though.
 
Last edited:
I auditioned these fairly extensively before moving from the Spire to the Soundlab. I heard them in a medium room - 13 x 15, and they were substantially better than the 3.6's. The electronics were all Ayre, including the 300wpc monoblocks.

If you are comparing to a hybrid logan, the maggie will sound warmer, slower, and less detailed, but more coherent and with much better bass. Maggies nicely present the musical whole. However, are these tradeoffs worth it to you?

If you are comparing to the clx, I think Jeff is pretty much on the money with his assessment. In addition, below is a superb compare/ contrast / review from Audiogon system review section.


Ultimately, I chose the Soundlabs because they combine the virtues of Logans and Maggies, work better in smaller rooms, and have more nuance and microdynamics than both Logans and Maggies are capable of - and present the Absolute Sound to me better than anything I have heard.

Go out and listen - you are at a great place. Good Luck in your search!

__________________________________________________________

A week ago I went over to Audio Archon located in Libertyville, Ill., which is the home salon of Mike Kay to audition the new Martin Logan CLX's paired along with the reference Descent i subwoofers.

Yes, I had read the Jonathan Valin review in the Absolute Sound, had talked to Mike about his impression of the CLX's now that his demo pair was fully broken in and that his system and room had been "dialed in" ( Mike is a truth teller), so when he shared his excitement about their stellar performance I knew that the CLX's offered something special. However, I'm a hard core skeptic and have to use my own pair of ears' to really make a decision of what's going on sonicly with a piece of gear.

I have had the great pleasure of listening/auditioning to some of the most highly regarded speakers in all of high end audio ( Wilson's, Kharma's, Sound Lab's, MBL's, Magico's, Magnapan's, S&P Tech's, Rockport's, B&W's, Audio Analysis', Avalon's), I do have a preference for planar speakers which I find to offer more of the "illusion" of real music, so I was intrigued about what this full range electrostatic speaker had to offer.

The physical appearance of the CLX's is quite striking compared to the pictures I had seen before of this speaker. Mike's pair was the anniversary edition with all aluminum frame, in silver, and is high tech looking for sure, but at the same time almost demur and delicate because of the transparency of its panels. Great eye candy! The CLX's also appear to be extremely well built using the finest materials. None of the above would matter if the CLX's did not perform sonically at a world class level. They do, here's the details:

1) World reference level clarity/transparency without etch or harshness. This speaker floats the music into the acoustic space with all the micro-details without being in your face. I have no doubt that if anything less then reference level upstream gear were used to drive the CLX's or if you play badly recorded or hot sounding sources this speaker will not sweeten up or euphonically cover over these deficiencies.

2) In the older generations of Martin Logan's I always felt that they sounded lean regarding the part of the harmonic I refer to as the body, not the leading edge or decays. They nailed the leading edge and decays, but kinda left out the middle body. The CLX's have completely eliminated this short coming. The speaker offers both the speed and accuracy of the leading edge of notes, but now have the fullness of real music when it comes to the body of these notes. This reminds very much of what happened sonicly when I put my MG-20's on Myesound stands, they dramatically picked up speed/clarity/transparency, so that the 20's now had that prcise leading edge of the harmonic and still retained the body/fullness of the notes. So, the MG-20's got faster and kept their warmth and the ClX's still are lightening fast electrostatics that now have body and warmth that other generations of Martin Logan's lacked.

3) One of the best soundstage presentations I have heard regarding width and depth, along with precise pinpoint 3D imaging without an artificial sense of having "cutouts" posted on the overall soundstage. These images are totally intregated with the rest of the players and fiber of the music.

4) Because of the CLX's clarity/transparency microdynamics and details can be heard at low volume levels, yet the speakers can kick out macrodynamics at loud volume without compression or breakup at all. The low end extension with the Descent i subwoofers is seamless with great punch and accurate timbres.

Because my reference is a pair of MG-20's that are biamped and sit on a pair of Myesound stands it would be fair to compare the sonic performance of the CLX's to the highly regarded MG-20's or 20.1's. I believe that if there not identical twins that they are at least fraternal sisters. Might the CLX's be a smidge faster/cleaner, I'm not sure. They are both terrific world class transducers that offer great performance. Now, I'm comparing a pair of speakers that retail for $13000.00 for the MG-20.1's to $23000.00 for the CLX's, however, in my opinion, to get either the MG-20's or 20.1's to really sing you must add on the following expenses:

1) Myesound stands $600.00 A must for all Maggies!

2) External active x-over $3000.00 I use a Bryston in my system.

3) An extra great stereo amp or pair monoblocks since you need to biamp $60000.00 to what your willing or able to spend. I use a pair of Pass Labs XA-100's, retail cost $13000.00.

4) You need two extra reference level IC's since we are biamping $2000.00 to what your willing to or able to spend. I use Stealth Metacarbon's, that retail for $3500.00 for a one meter pair.

Total cost: $236000.00

So, now the cost difference for us screwball audiophiles looking for the ultimate performance does not seem quite as drastic as it first appears to be between these speakers. MG-20's or 20.1's with their passive x-over, sitting on their stock footers and being driven by a great single amp are wonderful speakers and quite a bargain at their price, however if you really want to get them to live up to their true potential, the above stated options & costs are part of the deal.

A final note. Mike Kay is one of the great guys of high end audio, both in his knowledge and honesty and a pleasure to work with. So, if you have any questions or want to setup an audition, just give him a call at 847-687-4800. His Audio Archon salon is a great addition to the high end community in the Chicagoland area.

I always say their is no "BEST" in the world of high end gear. Personal taste and system synergy lead to what each of us want to listen to and own. Now that I have heard the CLX's I put them on my list of world class reference speakers and believe they compete with any speaker regardless of cost. </SMALL>


_________________________________________________________
 
David. Awsome review and comparison. I have heard the 20.1 but
never the clx.
 
David. Awsome review and comparison. I have heard the 20.1 but
never the clx.

Hi Timm,

Someone else wrote this up and posted it on Audiogon. However, I can take the credit for sniffing it out. Since there are no Audiogon links allowed, I just copied and pasted.

I wish all the magazines were that thorough in their compare / contrasts, but I think they are afraid of ****ing off the companies who pay for ads or may advertise in the future.
 
I would say that you "have" to spend a quarter of a million dollars to get 20.1's to sing is pretty silly.

Buy a used CJ Premier 350 for 6k and you'll be very happy. Even a McCormack DNA500 is a pretty good match for 20.1's. The McIntosh MC1.2KW's is a nice match as well.
 
Yes I agree with Jeff. 236k to get them to sing?? Let's get real
that is a silly comparison. The fact that the sound of the speaker
continues to show the strengths of the improved electronics can't
be held against it. I misread that. I thought it said 23.6k. Again I
stand by my original statements and it appears as if others agree.
I'm sorry Gordon. I am being stupid and don't get the CC acronym
That drives me nuts !!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top