A Question for Maggie lovers/owners

i stand corrected. the source is digital, the signal is obviously analog.

HI

Maggie owner here... The thing about Magnepan is the high performance to value ratio IMHO... I have heard speakers that I do find ultimately better than the 20.1 but they do not do everything better and what they do better is not such a huge difference for me to really consider moving toward them...

Let me quickly add that the few speakers I find better than the 20.1 belong to the strastophericly priced... Wilson X-2 , Dynaudio Evidence Master to name these 2...

The last pair of Maggies I owned were the 1.5QR's (10 yrs ago). Since then I just have not lived in a environment where I could place maggies. I also have gotten used to having the deeper bass response that comes with near full-range box speakers. That said, if I had the room for one of the bigger pair of maggies, and the money to buy the proper amplification, I might try them again. They do have a unique, and very seductive sound.

I understand MRT. In this case, you should not worry, I have fed a steady diet of an analog signal from a digital source to my MG3As since 1988 and the old darlings are not even breathing hard today. Never a murmur, never even a hint of clipping. . . and never a complaint. . . if bigamy were not illegal, I'd marry them!

Hi

I am a huge Maggie fan and owner... The MG 20.1 is to me one of the best speaker on the market. I must however say that I have heard speakers that are better overall... All of them at least 5 times the 20.1 price... I must quickly add that no B&W or Thiel oe even Vandersteen I have heard is even close to them

The Wilson X-2 and the Dynaudio Evidence Master are two odf the speakers that to mu\y ears are clearly superior to the 20.1 in the area of reproducing music. I have not Von Scweikert VR-9 but what the VR-4 do is uncanny.. I need to listen to the Alon Grand Reference.. People whose ears I beleive in have told me it is up there..

Yet these speakers do not do everyhting as well as the 20.1 , for one, The midbass of the 20.1 is more articulate that that of the X-2 and its treble airier and apparently more extended... The 20.1 lose in the midband (circa 500 Hz to low treble <7 KHz), low bass dynamics and microdynamics reproduction where these 2 push it aside...

I am a planar fan. I like the way a dipolar speaker reproduce music in a room and I am not talking about that false sense of space that un-tamed reflections provide... now it is the way a dipole excite the room, the way bass from dipole seems to sound truer and less "reproduced" than a point-source...

What speakers like the X-2 do is an incredible sense of ease in the reproduction of microdynamics. The music flows.. from a whisper to a roar in the whole audible range with ease and with almost any amp... I have found that speakers of low sensitivity seem to require cranking up the volume a bit .. They rarely excell in microdynamics (The Quad ESL could be an exception in this regard but only in the midband and was it low in sensitivity?).. More on this observation in another thread...