Magnepan 1.6

The mistake that most people make is UNDERPOWERING the Maggie 1.6's. With 100 wpc [into their 4 ohms impedance, which is more like a resistive load] I was very impressed.

After switching to a Spectron 1 [class D] with 500 wpc, the speakers came alive...punchy dynamics and a marked increase in lower bass. Also, the 1.6's take quite awhile to burn-in.

Further improvements can be obtained with a speaker stand [I forgot who makes it] as well as securing the top frame to the wall with metal studs and clamps [no too WAF friendly].

Huge sound for a ridiculously cheap price...but you do need mondo amp power!

the problem with magnepan's is definitely not the amplifier used to drive it. the speaker has problems regardless of what amplifier you use. its bass response is lacking and it has too much treble energy. if you use a powerful amplifier, you might find the presentation fatiguing.

speaker design is the issue not power. this is true of other speakers as well.

i have heard my magnepan's driven with mike sanders 300 watt solid state amp. it did not solve the magnepan's problem. it exacerbated them. the only amp that has tamed magnepans that i am aware of is the conrad johnson mv 125.

The Magnepan 1.6 has only peers, no superiors. That's my opinion anyway. I thoroughly enjoyed the two pairs, and about 5 years that I owned them. When you consider their cost, they are quite a bargain. There is a good reason speakers like the 1.6 and, MMG continue to appear in The Absolute Sound's speaker of the year, editor's choice, budget component of the decade, etc., over and over, year after year. And, this isn't the only entity that has been enamored by the Maggies over the years.

Maggies are outstanding speakers. What draws me to Maggies is the crystal clear sweeping soundstage they produce. None of the speakers I have owned can do it like Maggies, no doubt due to the large surface area of the panels. I currently have rebuilt SMGa's to Peter Gunn's specs and and it's hard for me to imagine a better sound. Other speakers seem to compress and miniaturize the performers. Even large, cone floor standers. MMG's and 1.6's are CHEAP for what you get in return.

Mrtennis, I'm assuming you're referring to the "8A". Yes, in my review I describe the differences between the 8A and 8B in detail. I was able to conduct the listening tests in my room after changing the tweeter to upgrade it to the 8B. The change was permanent (technically reversable, but practically, would require resoldering the old tweeter in, etc.), so I was not able to switch back and forth repeatedly. However, I had extensive experience with the 8A and took notes prior to the change so that I could compare the differences I heard.

Mrtennis, I also agree with you that unless one has a truly refined higher end solid state amp, the 1.6 will have an edge/stridency in the treble which is neigh unto impossible to remove. CDP's will also have an effect on this, as will cables, but my conclusion is that virtually nothing will compeletely tame that aggressive treble - it is inherent in the design. Even the LFT-8A had a similar harshness, though not as pronounced, in the high end until the new tweeters were installed. Now, the intensity of the treble is much more comparable to a refined dynamic speaker, better integrated.

Nealhood, your feeling that the 1.6 is the best speaker in its class was also my opinion for many years, until I was able to conduct listening sessions with both speakers in my room using a variety of equipment (see my review). Your opinion is a popular one, but many planar fans dismiss the E.T.'s without justification and would be surprised at what they would hear from the E.T.'s.