Is Maggie 20.1 still overall better than 3.7?


Hi Folks, is Maggie 20.1 (or even the older version, 20) still overall better than 3.7(i)?

Second question: are the 20.7s on a totally another level compared with 20.1s?
Convert?fit=crop&h=128&rotate=exif&w=128mtoc
Good questions . I would like to know too .
Well, I listened to both the 3.7i and the 20.1. The larger panel 20.1 still sounded more natural than the 3.7i.
Yes, and the 3.6 is better than the 3.7i IMO.

Warmer midrange, with lower bass response.

Mark Winey squashed the xover to fit inside the speaker.  Stupid move.
Interesting--I like my 3.6R's with the Mye stands, Cardas jumpers and SR Red fuses. I would put them up against stock 3.7i's.  Maybe.....any more opinions on the two?

When the 1.7's came out i owned 1.6's . I bought the 1.7's and listened side by side for three weeks . I returned the 1.7's . The soundstage of the 1.7's seemed recessed comparably . Also the bass seemed  (tighter) but less pronounced than the 1.6 . I couldn't understand how everyone liked the 1.7's better . Oh well ...
I’m surprised how few magnetic-planar lovers (which I am, having bought Tympani I’s back in ’73, and currently owning Tympani IV’s) have heard (or even heard OF) the Eminent Technology LFT-8b. Definitely superior to the 1.6/7 (and perhaps even the 3.7) in a number of ways, for those curious, and only a couple hundred bucks more ($2499).
Bdp,

I had had just a slightly different take on the ET.  There was a local dealer that had a pair and I was impressed.  The more extended low end vis a vis the Maggies made me initially lean toward the ET, but over a longer term listening session, it became evident that there was something in the mid-bass that didn't sound quite right to my ear.

I had previously owned (and loved) 3.6s, but they were too big for the space in my new home, so I was trying to find a similar sound in a smaller package.  In the end, I bought MMGs with a pair of subs and (much) preferred the result to either the stand-alone 1.6 or the ET.  My total cost was under $1800 and that price tag was lower  than either of my alternative planar magnetic options.

I still suspect (obviously impossible to know with certainty) that this may be the best value in a true full-range system on the market.  The one caveat is that I use Audyssey in my preamp (pre-pro). The resultant sub/panel integration is undetectable (to me ear), but the trade-off is that analog sources are subject to ADC and DAC.  It's not an issue for me as this particular system is strictly digital, but I understand that it could be a deal breaker for others.


"Interesting--I like my 3.6R’s with the Mye stands, Cardas jumpers and SR Red fuses. I would put them up against stock 3.7i’s. Maybe.....any more opinions on the two?"

I have owned the 3.6 and currently the 3.7, I would say both have their strenghts and weaknesses;

The 3.7 is more coherent with slightly better midbass slam, more articulate but sounds a bit leaner than the 3.6. I sometimes miss the fuller lows.

  • The 3.7 is more coherent with slightly better mid bass slam, more articulate but sounds a bit leaner than the 3.6. I sometimes miss the fuller lows.
Thanks, Hasse--do you use any of the tweaks I listed?  

Yep Marty, the ET’s woofer is it’s weakness all right (as is the woofer in any and all planar/cone woofer hybrids---with one exception. Read on!). I don’t use it, just leaving the woofer jumpers on the x/o unconnected, running only the panels down to the factory x/o frequency of 180Hz. I use the GR Research OB/Dipole sub in it’s place. The OB sub can x/o as high as 300Hz (though I cross it over at 180, same as the stock ET), and puts out bass with the same sound quality and character as the panels (no, really!) but goes lower and plays louder. True pure dipole sound from 20Hz to 20kHz!

The sub can be added to any planar, and I would even if I had 3.7i’s (or even 20.7’s). It even blends seamlessly with ultra-transparent ESL’s (I used it first with my Quad 57’s). I’m gonna sell one of vintage drum kits to finance another pair, stacking the OB H-frames two high. They’ll be 5’ tall, exactly the same as the ET panels. Four 12" Servo-Feedback OB/Dipole woofers and the ET magnetic-planar panels (whose main driver covers 180Hz-10kHz, with no x/o and in true push/pull balanced operation, unlike the single-ended Maggies) per side.....like the Infinity RS-1b (which I owned for a few years, Brooks Berdan’s personal pair), only much better!

"Thanks, Hasse--do you use any of the tweaks I listed?"


Hi Freeman, yes I´m using the Cardas mid and tweeter jumpers and I am tempted to try the Synergistic Red.

Perhaps 3.7s mated with subs is the ticket? Recently heard 20.7 with REL subs, pretty great. Cheers,
Spencer
Subs NEVER mate perfectly with planars.

The sonic transition from panel to cone is always heard IMO!
That's how I felt Don. So I bought a pair of Magneplanar Tympani T-IV's to use as (sub)woofers for my Quad 57's (I had a big room ;-). Then I got a pair of the OB/Dipole Subs from GR Research. Wanna buy a pair of Tympani IV's? I don't need 'em anymore! 
Don, I also used to agree w/your statement, but newer JL and REL subs have opened my eyes (ears?). Cheers,
Spencer
They cheapened the Maggie's and took away the easy tweets one could do with the outboard XO !!  Less bass is never good no matter how hard someone may try to convince you.  Parts are crap now as well...I've moved on!
Danny Richie (GR Research) just took in a customers Maggies (I think the SMG’s) to redo the x/o with better parts. While he was at it, he took measurements, and found a simple way to improve the speaker’s response by adding a part to the x/o’s low-pass leg, which resulted in a reduction of the lower-range panel’s excess output above the x/o frequency, ridding the speaker of a hump in it’s frequency response. Danny is quite the x/o authority, being hired by other speaker companies to design x/o’s for their products. Anyone wanting their Maggies improved, call or email him and see what he says.
Hasse, by all means, try the SR fuses, and skip the reds and go with the SR blacks.  I'm going to go from red to black.  I also push the amperage values quite a bit--double.   

REL subs integrate perfectly and lift Maggies in sound stage and dynamics--i use two Strata III's. Older, but a nice size for the 3 series. 

I concur. REL subs are the best, IMO.
Integrate seamlessly w/ any system and really adds another dimension
in musicality. Happy Listening!
REL's are great!
Which REL´s integrate best with Maggies (3.7)?
Subs and Magnepans are are subjective taste, and YMMV.

I prefer the 6 footers over the smaller versions, in a big way, after listening to the MG IIa, IIIa, and 3.6 every day, for 40 years, in 8 different rooms. I know what I like. Bigger panels give more resolution, and better, fuller, tone across, a wider frequency range. You do not need to go below 30 Hz, due to room standing waves, with peaks and nulls, that are problematic, are hard to deal with IMO. There is little musical info down that low, however some folks like to feel bass, and want to ruffle pants legs.  I do not!

The construction of the panels is well thought out. If you read the patents the bass/mid panels are "tied down" at differing spots, from top to bottom, smoothing the lower bass and mid bass response. Thus putting drums lower than vocals, for realistic vertical sound staging. But the very low bass is projected the full height of the speaker.

Subs may go lower, but are shorter, and do not give the, low frequency  full height bass, like running without subs. There is a trade off.