Magnepan 3.7's versus 20.1's?

I just had an opportunity to hear the 1.7, 3.7, and 20.1 in a store here in Evanston IL. I thought that the 1.7 was more coherent sounding than the 3.7 driven by the same electronics. The 20.1 was on a different level entirely. The rooms were sized about the same (15 x 20 or so). The 20.1s sounded real with proper extension and scale. The 3.7 seemed pinched and tight. Of course, i don't know how long any of these speakers had been played. I assume the 20.1 was well broken in and the 3.7 quite new so that may have been a factor.

I expected the 20.1 to sound better than the other two but the 1.7 was a real treat.

The 20.1 gets my vote for best panel .

Interestingly, this debate is ongoing also on Audioasylum.com. Several posters accepted HP’s words as gospel. I was at that point as a new enthusiast in the so called “High End Audio” in 1976. In fact my first high end system mostly comprised of components on HP’s recommended list. To wit: ARC D76A, ARC SP3, Magnepan MG2, Kenwood KD500 with AT605 footers, Black Widow arm/Signet cartridge. I have a great deal of respect for HP, as he is one of the pioneers in developing the vocabulary of descriptive terms used to characterize the performance of audio systems. I agree with HP on many occasions, but HP has his own preferences and often times I disagree with his assessments of components.

In terms of the debate between the 3.7s and 20.1, I am not in a position to make a definitive comparison in the same system. I have heard the 3.7s separately and recently I purchased the 20.1s. Currently I have both the 3.5s and 20.1s in my music room. In the 20.1s, both the mid (quasi ribbon) and bass (planar-magnetic) panels are push-pull (magnets on both sides of the Mylar screen. Thus in principle, the 20.1s should have better transient response and definition than the 3.7 quasi ribbon mid and bass sections with magnets on a single side of the Mylar. Also, the 20.1s have a substantially more massive frame than the 3.7s. There is no comparison in terms of construction between the two speakers, which is reflected in the cost differential. The 3.7s are excellent speakers but the 20.1s are magical: they are a music lover’s dream. In my estimate, one of the major drawbacks of the 3.7s is that they cannot be bi-wired or bi-amped without major internal modifications. I am curious as to why Magnepan eliminated the eternal x-over box. Was the decision based on performance or the need to maintain a certain price point?

Good callout on bi-wire capability.

Thanks for the input Kirby, Tmsorosk & Gmorris - nice to see this thread get back on track with some actual comparisons!