2. speakers
  3. 123963-78796

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?
128x128mtoc
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,510 posts
 
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).
martykl
3,578 posts
 
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.


hasse
230 posts
 
"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.

jafreeman's avatar
jafreeman
689 posts
 
  • 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?  
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,510 posts
 

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!

More to discover