Magnepan 1.6 vs Magnepan MG-1

I have a pair of MG-1 improved, are the 1.6qr way better? Are they worth trading up? The reason I ask is I have a pair of Paradigm studio 100 v3 and I like the dynamic sound, bass and drums etc. but love the mid and voices on the Maggies. Do the newer Maggies do more of the dynamics? Just because I'd like to only have one pair of speakers. Thanks for responses.
I have owned both Maggie MG1 and 1.6 and can say the 1.6 is more dynamic and sound much better, but you need the power, at least 200 watts with lots of current. I ended up selling my 1.6 as I could not afford an amp for them, they will take as much power and quality you can give them and just keep getting better and better. I think they were a little too much for my 13 x 22 room as I like to turn it up a little myself and I think they like a bigger room as well.
Long ago I had MG II.

There have been quite significant improvements in recent Maggies, and the MG1.6 has benefited most. Money was not an issue when I selected MG1.6 over the MG3.6. I liked its sound just as well as the more expensive model. Tastes differ, and that's mine.

With regard to amplifier power, it is true that they benefit from high power. However, with the advent of digital power amps this does not have to cost a lot. I am using CarvePro ZR1600 amps, claiming 600 watts/channel at 4 ohms, and these amps can be bought new (with 5 year warantee) for about $840. They sound great too. Other digital amps are soon expected on the market, and some may offer similar quality at low cost.
Question.. Eldartford have you bypassed the fuses and the tweeter attenuator all together on the Maggies ? If you have changed the binding post..where did you get the uprades from? I may just send everything to the Tireguy and let him deal with it! LOL!!!!

Tireguy needs to start a mod company for the maggies! I will be one of the first in line. Tireguy when did you say you were going on vacation again ? HEh Heh Heh
Gmood1...I have been through the experience of burning up tweeter wires on my old original MG II, so I am happy to have the peace of mind afforded by the fuse.

I do use the "tweeter attenuator" which is the same thing as the "padding resistor" that other loudspeaker designs hide away in the crossover network. I like the Magnepan approach of letting you select this resistor value. If you like zero ohms, that's fine. I am using one ohm, but I often turn down the treble tone control by 2 dB, so I may experiment with 1.5 ohms.

Last week I assembled a new set of speakers for my rear channels, Odens, from Madisound. My old Dynaudios, with 5" MTM drivers are excellent, but just couldn't keep up with three MG1.6 plus subwoofers in the front. I sprung for the "premium" version of the crossover, and was impressed. Accordingly I have decided to treat the Maggies to a top-of-the-line crossover, and have just ordered $530 worth of stuff to do the deed on three speakers.
Eldartford... I couldn't help myself ..had to remove the fuses and bypass the resistor. The 2.5Rs sound like a totally different speaker.Someone needs to design a fuse that doesn't diminish the sound quality.Until then I guess I will be riding the edge of tweeter destruction. Are you going to make outboard crossovers or just replace components on the panel? May try this just not sure where to start thou. Might be easier for me to pack them up and send them to you ! HEh hee
Gmood1...After some study I have settled on the following design.

I will retain (at least for now) the original terminals and fuse holder.

I will remove all the original crossover components.
In the space of the original crossover, I will install the tweeter capacitors: three 7mfd musicaps = 21 mfd. Thus the tweeter will always be connected through its capacitor.

The woofer terminals will be connected directly to the woofer, requiring that the inductor be outboard.

The outboard inductor will be "wired into" the woofer's (biwire) speaker cable. No extra terminals involved.

I have chosen to use 3mH instead of 3.5mH. Note that the tweeter capacitor of 21mfd is changed from the original 22 mfd. This will shift the crossover frequency up slightly, and reduce the gap between tweeter and woofer that causes a dip in the overall frequency response. I am quite sure that the woofer can play a few Hz higher in my application where the Maggies are crossed over to a subwoofer at 90 Hz. The inductor will be a 10AWG air coil from Madisound. (I will try it this way, and tweek as necessary).

By the way, aren't the 2.5R three way? The MG1.6 are 2 way with a very simple crossover which makes upgrade particularly attractive. the 2.5R is a two way design. Here's a general spec sheet of the differences in Magnepans former and current models.

Please keep me informed of what components you find that work the best in the crossover. It would be nice if there was a guide book with different types of upgrades and what each one will do to change the sound in the magnepans. But I understand it will be trial and error.A guide book may save a little money in parts thou.
Gmood1...That is an interesting summary of all the Maggies. I note that the crossover of the MG1.6 is given as 600Hz acoustic. From an electrical point of view, the woofer is 3dB down at 180 Hz and the tweeter is 3dB down at 1800 Hz. The crossover slopes are 12 dB for the woofer and 6 dB for the tweeter and both parts of the mylar screen are still driven in the range between the crossover break frequencies. The acoustic output is reportedly down by 4dB at 600 Hz, and tweeks have been developed to boost output at 600 Hz.

My revised inductor value will raise the woofer crossover to 215 Hz and the capacitor change will raise the tweeter crossover to 1900 Hz. These are small changes (and they save a few $) but I really think that the resulting crossover is better optimzed for use with a subwoofer, where the woofer panel is not trying to pump out 50 Hz.
Eldartford..can you get the same results buy using a Behringer DCX2496 Ultra Drive Pro Digital Crossover System? This only cost around $350.00 new. I am curious if I can use this and do away with the on board crossovers completely. Looks pretty complicated. But it would be faster to dial the settings in than solder and scrap parts on a regular basis. What do you think?

If this will work all I need to do is straight wire my ribbon and bass drivers to separate binding post...I think.
Gmood1...Of course you could biamp the Maggies, but your costs would include another power amp as well as the crossover. I don't know if the particular crossover you referenced is suitable. I would suggest the Audio Control Richter Scale, which gives you a 1/3 octive equalizer, six bands, in the range below 125 Hz, and an analyser, as well as the crossover function, all for about the same money. The crossover is 24dB/octive, which is great for most speakers, but then the Maggie screens are a different animal. Note the shallow crossover slopes that Magnepan uses.

If you were to biamp, that fuse MUST go back in the tweeter circuit. I have been biamping and triamping for forty years, but I never had the guts to hook a full range power amplifier directly to a tweeter.
Ok cool!!! I was thinking of using 4 channels of my Panasonic. Similar to Newform Research setup. I know the Behringer has Zero attack limiters on all output channels. This is supposed to protect the speakers to a degree...Man I sure hate to put that fuse back in.Does the Audio Control Richter Scale have this? If so this will be my next project. Always wanted to use an active crossover on two channel. Thanks for all the info Eldartford.
THESE TWO SHOULDN'T BE COMPARED. The two that you can compare is the 1.4 and 1.6 and also the MG-12'S OR OLDER .05 which I have OR .06.
THE MG-1 is to be compared to the newer MMG or the SMG series. The 1.6 is a much more improved MAGGIE.
I am not an expert on MAGGIES, but from my experience and information I have learned from the MAGGIE experts who are audiophiles and owners of various MAGGIE models from low, mid to higher grade such as the 3.6, the comparison is not a good one since the 1.6 is a much more improved model.