Nice review job. What you heard largely coincides with my own opinion of these speakers, but I do have a few other comments.
What you describe as amp clipping from your Bryston, in my experience would almost certainly be clipping from the planar panels themselves. The small Maggies are rather easy to overdrive at higher volumes, but it probably won't damage the speakers if you back off. Due to their relative ineffeciency, however, lower power amps are best avoided.
Since you indicate you have used 1.6's, I was a little surprised not to see some criticism of the comparitive lack of smoothness I hear with the MMGs. They just have more texture throughout the band, and particularly in the treble, than more expensive Maggies, or than speakers like your old Meadowlarks.
I agree that the MMGs won't do deep bass, but I also find them to be somewhat rolled in the highest treble as well. I second your opinions of the large soundstage, softer image focus, and incisive transients. The baby Maggies do give a fair-sized dose for the money of the special sound that makes the brand famous.
My own take is that with the quality of electronics that many A'gon readers will use, the bigger Maggies, like the three times the price 1.6s, actually represent an even better value than do the MMGs, giving better transparency, smoothness, articulation, dynamic headroom, and extension. But for someone who is curious about the Maggie magic, and who listens to primarily midrange-centered acoustic music in a smaller room using moderately-priced electronics, the MMGs will provide a more see-through and larger sonic recreation than will most (any?) box speakers available in their $500 price range.
What you describe as amp clipping from your Bryston, in my experience would almost certainly be clipping from the planar panels themselves. The small Maggies are rather easy to overdrive at higher volumes, but it probably won't damage the speakers if you back off. Due to their relative ineffeciency, however, lower power amps are best avoided.
Since you indicate you have used 1.6's, I was a little surprised not to see some criticism of the comparitive lack of smoothness I hear with the MMGs. They just have more texture throughout the band, and particularly in the treble, than more expensive Maggies, or than speakers like your old Meadowlarks.
I agree that the MMGs won't do deep bass, but I also find them to be somewhat rolled in the highest treble as well. I second your opinions of the large soundstage, softer image focus, and incisive transients. The baby Maggies do give a fair-sized dose for the money of the special sound that makes the brand famous.
My own take is that with the quality of electronics that many A'gon readers will use, the bigger Maggies, like the three times the price 1.6s, actually represent an even better value than do the MMGs, giving better transparency, smoothness, articulation, dynamic headroom, and extension. But for someone who is curious about the Maggie magic, and who listens to primarily midrange-centered acoustic music in a smaller room using moderately-priced electronics, the MMGs will provide a more see-through and larger sonic recreation than will most (any?) box speakers available in their $500 price range.