Steve Guttenberg finally reviews the Eminent Technology LFT-8b loudspeaker.

There are probably thousands of Maggie owners that are completely satisfied with them [I an one of them] and the fact that they can hardly fill the demand for them should tell you something.  Just because they might not be someone else's cup of tea doesn't mean they do not deliver what a lot of what we like.

@krelldreams: Yeah, a comparison of the LFT-8 (b and c iterations) with the MG3.7i would be fascinating. As I said, the MG1.7i didn't suit me, but the 3.7 is a very different animal. Both the MG3.7i and Tympani T-IVa have the Magnepan ribbon tweeter, about as good as tweeters get. If I had a big enough room I'd still be listening to my T-IVa's, which I love.

Considerations in choosing between the 3.7i and LFT-8b/c---apart from their basic inherent sound characteristics---will include:

1- Room size. The LFT-8 measures 13" wide and 60" tall, the 3.7 24" wide and 71" tall, quite a bit bigger. The 3.7 can be rather imposing in smallish rooms. With either speaker sufficient distance from the wall behind them is non-negotiable; the common wisdom is a minimum of 3', but more is better. 5' just barely meets the distance needed for the returning rear wave to arrive back at the panel delayed in time 10ms, which is the difference needed for our brains to hear the two waves---direct and reflected---as separate events, rather than the rear wave being perceived as the smearing of the front wave. I fortunately have that 5' distance available in my current music room.

2- Choice of amplification. The MG3.7i is a pretty difficult load for most tube amps, while the LFT-8 is a relatively-easy one. If I was thinking about getting into the MG3x series Maggies, I would look for a 3.6. Why? Because the 3.6 has a parallel cross-over so can easily be bi-amped: a beefy solid state amp on the bass driver, a tube on the m/t drivers. The 3.7i has a series crossover, so the drivers cannot be driven separately without internal surgery.

The LFT-8 has dual binding posts, making bi-amping pretty easy (Bruce Thigpen endorses the idea, and provides instructions on how to do it in the owners manual). The m/t panel driven separately is, as I said above, an 11 ohm load, great for tube amps. In moderately-sized rooms the LFT-8 does not require a brute force power amp, but being very transparent is revealing of faults in amplifiers. But, I want to add, not so ruthless-revealing as to make less than great sounding recordings unlistenable. 

Who really cares about Steve Guttenberg?  Honestly.

The comments regarding tube amps being a good match with the LFT 8 correspond with my own experience. With the 8b, I preferred a 100W triode tube amp with 6550's. Now a 20W amp with 300b's in push-pull mode is sounding better than the higher watt amp. And in my 250 s.f. room, they can go over 100db without stressed. 

@soix: Years before Steve Guttenberg had a listen to the LFT-8b, Robert E.Greene gave the speaker a very interesting review in TAS (in 2014). Sure, one can also ask "Who really cares about Robert E. Greene?" To a degree I do (we both like the Quad ESL, which I also own). If you don't, fine, ignore him. Is it okay for the rest of us to discuss what Greene and Guttenberg (and a number of reviews by UK critics, also pretty interesting) think of the LFT-8b? You're free to state your opinion if you wish.