Magnepan 1.6

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.

I have also owned the ET LFT-8As, though these were the "A" version and, I owned them for about one year (1985). Don't get me wrong, the 8As were fine sounding speakers. I thought these had excellent bass extension and a relatively clean and seductive sounding midrange with decent detail. However, the treble seemed rolled off and, the midrange sounded slightly distant. Perhaps the new "B" version addresses this. Additionally, the treble really dropped like a rock when I stood up. The speaker had rather poor vertical dispersion. Hopefully the "B" version has addressed this also. This might not affect most listeners since they tend to stay glued to the listening chair. But, I often move around, play the tuner sometimes for background music and, don't favor a large tonal shift everytime I get up. The Maggies on the other hand, retain their "live" nature even as one walks around, even room to room.

I might call Bruce and, talk to him about this new "B" revision. Like I say, overall I liked these speakers. I am willing to try them again if most of my concerns have been addressed.

I respect your comments Douglas and, now I need to go find your review and read it.

hi doug:

my comments about the tweeter came from bruce thigpen himself. if you lived near me, i would propose an experiment comparing the 8a and the 8b. i would bet that i would say the 8a is softer in the treble than the 8b .

another problem with the et 8, a or b is the poor integration between the woofer and the planar elements. i have heard the speaker many times. it sounds like two speakers.

and one more thing, regarding the 1.6s, a solid state amp will make the tweeter problem worse. a euphonic tube amp, like the mv 125 solves the problem.

i guess we will have to agree to disagree.

"i guess we will have to agree to disagree."

Absolutely, we all hear differently. Trust your ears rather than someone's opinion.