Magnepan 3.7's versus 20.1's?

Before we digress, I suggest

Magnepan 3.7's versus 20.1's versus Tympani IVa's

please.

I would think the 3.7s will be a distant third to both.

Both require a lot of power, 300wpc to start, of quality power unless dynamics do not matter or your room is small, a hardwood floor etc. The 3.7 is a big slice of the 20.1, but not the whole pie. Close enough though that a well set up 3.6 ,3.7 will outperform a poorly set up 20.1.

Thanks for your input folks. I have sufficent amplification & a suitable sized room - & was leaning towards purchasing a pair of 20.1s. I just haven't had the chance to compare them to the 3.7s & wondered whether the 3.7s were as close in performance as some people seem to be suggesting.

I have owned Magneplanars on and off since I was in high school in 1979.

They are wonderful, but need power and are extremely sensitive to room placement.

So a well set up 1.7 might also outperform the 20's. Indeed, a well set up MMG might outperform the 20's in certain situations, neither of which says anything about the value of 3.7s.

My room and listening distance isn't big enough to accommodate the 20.1s. Budget isn't a determining factor either. In addition, I preferred the way the treble coordinated and integrated with rest of the range in the 3.7s the most. If I could have the dynamics and low end of the 20.1s with the integrated non-forward "to image scale" sound of the 3.7s in a 3.7 footprint, that would be perfect for me. I'm not saying the 3.7 is a better speaker than the 20.1. I'm saying for my ears and my room and my preferences, I preferred the sound of the 3.7 over any Maggie I have heard. And before anyone says I didn't hear the 20.1s set up correctly. They were set up by a Maggie dealer who spent about 4 hours moving them 1/4" at a time to dial them in. They sounded amazing. A great speaker. I can't wait to see what the next version does. That will be one I likely trade up to.