Anything better than 1.7 Maggies

I've been looking for speakers for some time now. I have an older pair of Maggies (10.1s) and I love the sound. I want to go for the 1.7s but am wondering if there's any used product out there for around $4k which would be even better for my music (rock.. some pop and classical at times) maybe reproduce the crack of a (snare) drum (rather than the thump) better (where i think Maggies lack but I am not sure if the x.7s have the same problem).. I wanted to try Emerald Physics 2.3 but they are rare to find.

I know people would have asked this before but please help.
My amp:
Rotel RB 1090 (380 WPC)
Though my room is big about 25x10 my sitting position will be about 6 feet from the speakers.
A used pair of 3.6 should blow your hair back.
The Rotel has plenty of power, but more 'refinement' couldn't hurt.
You'll have to test for that, however.
Second the 3.6 and maybe adding a Wyred amp. Very nice combination.
Not a real fan of the 1.7.
Wait for a used pair of 3.7's to show up.. I'm sure you'll be able to buy a pair for $4K
I have the Maggie 1.7's now after owning (And liking) the
Emerald Physics CS-3's and CS 2.3's, and have found that the
maggies sound "wonderful" with a 50 W/PC tube integrated.
A match made in heaven actually! I would have never thought it would be so nice especially after running a pair of
260 W/PC mono blocks.

I am running a sub with the Maggies as I did the CS-3's and they are magic!
Someone just sold, or tried to sell, a beautiful pair of factory rebuilt Tympani IVa's for $2000 something. "Maggies with bass," as a friend described the Tympanis -- they'll smoke even the 3.6's, if you have the room for them. Maybe he still has them? Otherwise I agree, the 3.6's are a good choice, the true ribbon will do what you want with the highs.
You say that your room is 25' x 10'?
Does that mean that the front wall is the 25' wall?
I suppose that the 1.6/3.6 could work, but you are a little close. (too near the speakers)
My room is 14 x 25' in a finnished basement - and i can only sit 12' away due to a support column.
I have owned both 1.6 & 3.6 maggies and i can tell you that the 3.6 was the better speaker but the 1.6 was easier to integrate. The 1.6 was basically "plug and play" whereas, i would have to keep playing with placement with the 3.6 to get the right kind of synergy.
I sold them both a few years ago, but am looking to purchase a used pair of 1.7's within driving distance - the 3.6's were just too big for my room.
Have to agree with Erikminer, the 3.7 is the first panel speaker I been able to tolerate for long periods.
IF you can find it (doubtful), the Kingsound Prince II is far better imo. The Prince II would cost about three times as much new and likely about twice as much as the 1.7 used, but worth it.

I reviewed and own the Kingsound King for
Thanks guys. I will check out the Tympanis, Kingsounds and still trying to hear the Emerald Physics. In the meanwhile my budget has expanded a little and I spent some time listening to the Magnepan 3.7s. They sounded great to me but I am still a little scared of the size ( to answer Mike - my new listening room is 19*18).
I researched a bit and people say the Gallos 3.5 ref are the best bet compared to Maggies, they sound the same if not better. I want to compare them specifically to the 3.7s and I wonder if anyone has done that comparison. I know Gallo made mistakes with pricing but I am wondering if it is worth giving these a shot. I am getting a virtually new pair for about 4.5k.. please let me know what you think.

I have 3.7's in a 15.5' x 19' room. No problem at all. The strange thing is that they integrate better in the room than my 1.6QR's did. I've been able to take about half the room treatments out of the room. I certainly didn't expect this. The top end is much less aggressive in the 3.7R's. They are really wonderful speakers. Haven't heard the Gallos or Kingsounds.
To all,
This will be lengthy, so I'll apologize going in.
Waaaayyyy, back in the day, when I first became a Maggie dealer, 1984, so 27/8 years ago...I talked to the folks AT MAGGIE, about their basic design theology...their attempt of bringing realistic sound to everyone, and was immediately impressed by their honest, if not somewhat, personally 'dry' approach.
Also, I spoke to Jim Thiel, my friend and now mentor/business partner, as I was selling THIEL in my store...he was four square on Magnepan's side...agreeing with their intent and business practices.
As I watched Magnepan over the years...they've done NOTHING to change my basic impressions of who and what they are...and their products have, while slowly, in my impressions, gotten better, and better.
The new 1.7, IMHO, is a breakthrough that if you can afford worthy of serious lacks the basic and undeniable flaws that all 'dynamic speakers' have...cabinet colorations.
They are very flat, from a response standpoint...unlike some of Dave Wilson's products which are woefully non representative of output signal equals input ongoing source of fascination to me. to talk about Magnepan...if there's a better speaker for the money...find it.
This is not a commercial for Magnepan, just an explanation of how I feel after about 30 years of observing them.

Good listening,
Hi Lrsky,

I own a pair of 1.7's and agree that they are fantastic! I am
btw thinking of buying a DK design integrated from a local
friend, and am wondering if you had any experience with the combo? Don't you own the new company that was once DK??
I was on the fence 2 years ago about buying 1.6's... have always loved Maggies but playing tuba as a hobby I just wasn't satisfied with the bass. I put my order in for the 1.7's the night I auditioned them because the bass was right... fast. If and when I want pipe organ bass i'll put out another $2k for a powered subwoofer below 40 hz... my pre has 2 active outputs.

To be honest the biggest bass problem I've had with the maggies is getting the system in front to deliver all the bass in the recording and every system step forward I take, the maggies respond to the challenge. The only speaker I've ever liked better was someones home brewed Quad electrostat equivalent.. it made the Maggies sound slow.
Nobody seems to belive it, but get an amp that will put out a solid 450-500 watts a side into 4 ohms like a Bryston
or one of the newer Van Alstines and MMG's will do just about all that Maggies do .
I think 400 or 500 watts is a very practical amp for Maggies. Still, I've owned MMG's, and also Tympanis. I love the MMG's, which seem to me one of the most amazing bargains in audio. But comparing the MMG's to the Tympanis is like comparing a lap dog to a great dane.

I know someone who has 2500 watts on the bass panels of his Tympani IVa's. He's measured 120 dB SPL's with them! My MMG's started to show signs of strain in the mid 90's. Not to mention that they went down to about 55 Hz, while the big ones go down into the mid 20's. And the true ribbon tweeters are a lot cleaner than the quasi ribbon tweeters.
My opinons are probaly colored by the fact I only listen to classical music, which I find better on quasis than true ribbons AND by the fact I never hung around anyone stupid enough to play anything at 120 SPL.
Man, I've been discussing levels on two groups for the last two days and I'm getting a bit fatigued. :-) I guess I'd say that in my experience, the Tympanis will rock, but the MMG's won't, not without a sub, anyway. On classical, the MMG's can sound strained on large ensemble material if you listen at natural levels, but not at typical home listening levels, which are lower. The Tympanis cut though natural levels like butter. But these days, I don't listen to anything at those levels.

I guess I'd add that while long-term 120 dB levels are hazardous to your ears, short-term 120 dB peaks are pretty uncommon in classical music and very brief and so probably won't harm your ears unless you're a musician and exposed to them all the time. A concert grand for example produces 120 dB peaks up close. So it isn't as extreme as it sounds.
Just so, a symphony orchestral can overwhelm a 600 seat hall, much less a living room.