Maggie Dismay

[BC Dave]

I wouldn't dare look a gift horse in the mouth, having received a free pair of Maggie SMGa speakers, two Rotel power amps and a Sony preamp from my best buddy a few months back. However, I seem to have a love/hate relationship with the Maggies. On well recorded material, such as Steely Dan's recent recordings, they absolutely shine. I have them supported by a Mirage BPS150 sub and the blend is excellent. I have never owned any conventional speakers that I would say come close to the Maggies -- with the right music. The other day I threw on an old Joe Jackson CD and Chris Rea's Auberge. The sound just stank -- in your face in a shouty clock radio sort of way, even at low volumes. I shut the system off and had to leave the room and grab a beer and settle down in silence. If someone asked me what I thought of Maggies in general I would have a hard time answering. They are all over the map, like a foxy date who is slightly nutty. I think I prefer speakers that are more forgiving with a variety of brilliantly and sloppily recorded material. Any other Maggie owners out there have any opinions?

[Feanor]

I wouldn't dare look a gift horse in the mouth, having received a free pair of Maggie SMGa speakers, two Rotel power amps and a Sony preamp from my best buddy a few months back. However, I seem to have a love/hate relationship with the Maggies. On well recorded material, such as Steely Dan's recent recordings, they absolutely shine. I have them supported by a Mirage BPS150 sub and the blend is excellent. I have never owned any conventional speakers that I would say come close to the Maggies -- with the right music. The other day I threw on an old Joe Jackson CD and Chris Rea's Auberge. The sound just stank -- in your face in a shouty clock radio sort of way, even at low volumes. I shut the system off and had to leave the room and grab a beer and settle down in silence. If someone asked me what I thought of Maggies in general I would have a hard time answering. They are all over the map, like a foxy date who is slightly nutty. I think I prefer speakers that are more forgiving with a variety of brilliantly and sloppily recorded material. Any other Maggie owners out there have any opinions?

I've actually found my MG 1.6QR's to be very consistent in sound. Then again I listen to accoustic music exclusively. One thing is for sure though, the Maggies are quite revealing of nasty recordings and inferior playback equipment.

[nightflier]

Have you tried playing some Rod Stewart?

Seriously, I haven't had the best experience with planar speakers myself, but I can say that they should be typically consistent in their sound. With that in mind I'm wondering if maybe something else in the system is awry. Maybe you have a defective component?

[RGA]

Good recordings tend to sound good on most all loudspeakers which shows you how important recordings are.

It does not always have to do with how revealing the speaker is sometimes it's the source revealing problems of the loudspeakers. I have heard the SMG and I'd be giving them away as well. If you listen to small ensemble acoustic music only they are fine but I have found conventional boxed speakers to make that music sound better and will also play all other kinds of music. For amplified rock, pop forget Magnepan. I want to select my own music not be forced by the speakers to select music for me. The panels do some things very differently than boxed loudspeakers - sometimes for the better but sometimes not...if you listen to a wide range of music then chances are all but the very big panels won't cut it for you.

[Florian]

The problem lies in the equipment and mostly source components. Maggies are high in resolution (relatively to common conventional speakers) and will clearly tell you if a recording is crap. If you asume, like i asume RGA thinks, that a good speaker is consistant will all music and recordings then you are not used to high resolution systems. Most Pop and Rock music is badly recorded and a good system will clearly show that.

[Jimmy C]

...they were free! Seriously though, I could never pony up my money for a planar magnetic or electrostatic speaker... just my opinion, though.

Don't get me wrong - some big dollar Martin-Logan/Maggie/Quad do a lot of things VERY well. Soundstaging, clarity, and scale being the fun things that will probably draw one to them... but in retrospect, a lot of those things seems artificial... IMO. Maybe too much of a good thing? In other words, I don't like the piano eight feet up, and I could swear I can hear the plasticity? plasticness? of the drivers on the Mags.

And about recording quality... sure, we can all differentiate. It comes down to how painful the bad recordings are on your system... do your speakers allow you to listen no matter how bad the pressing? My Revels were about 20% of my collection, my Twins in the vincinity of 75% of all my music sounds GOOD. The funny thing is the Reynauds are actually MORE resolving than the M20s... you CAN have your cake and eat it too!

I'm done babbling... my $.02.

Whoomp, there it is...

[RGA]

Jimmy

Actually the word plasticity is a good one and that's what I hear with Maggie. There is no question that they have outstanding staging and imaging "if you sit with your head in a vice" as they are poor off axis. The main problems with Maggie is that they do not possess a visceral feel or present instrument pressure realistically -- clear mind you but not viscerally and the latter is critical. And many pop/rock recordings are very well recorded and it is these that Maggie still fails to reproduce well. And the reason they don't is because they don't have the ability to create the pressure of instruments and obviously for rock that is much needed. For simple classical instruments like the violin or symphony the dynamics are different and the Maggie can shine because it is good at staging and imaging.

It comes down to the simple fact that Maggie and Quad are far more musical taste dependent and that is not at all a problem because they can sound very good with it. The ability to resolve requires an ability of the speakers to be able to produce in room instrument pressure (which Horns tend to be excellent at) and it has to differentiate all recordings very well -- thus speakers that can't produce all music well have obvious limits in their ability to resolve information which is why all of the best recording and mastering studios use such dynamic loudspeakers.

That said big stats get around the issues - small stats don't which is why even Sound Lab is making hybrids -- but the hybrid makers simply admits that my point about them is completely correct.

[PeruvianSkies]

Have you tried playing some Rod Stewart?

Seriously, I haven't had the best experience with planar speakers myself, but I can say that they should be typically consistent in their sound. With that in mind I'm wondering if maybe something else in the system is awry. Maybe you have a defective component?

Dude, I was thinking the SAME THING about Rod Stewart...in fact I was thinking that MAGGIE DISMAY would make a good song title....

[jrhymeammo]

I must ask you this RGA. Are you basing your optionion based on your dealer friend who used to own a pair of 20.1?
Or the fact some Maggie dealer tell you live at the store for more than 3 month?
I'm not a member of "Let bash on RGA". I really like the way you state your opinions the way I love Flo and RL. Not a problem in that, but I think you need to live with Maggie before you make such statements, cuz it doesnt suit your style.
If you've played with Maggies in a past then please forget about everything above. I dont judge people based on their taste.


Maggies, like more speakers, are placement sensitive(my case anyways) more than typical box speakers.
I had my 1.6QR pulled out as much as 6' then I was starting to listen to music less and less. Now, they are about 4.5' from the fronty wall, and Donald Byrd is quenching my tired soul at this moment. Nothing like RVG's boxy sound coming out of Planars.
I also listen to some underground hiphop and they have some of the worst RQuality . Not sure if there is a system in the world that could make them sound as good as Stevie Wonder.

My system is definetly not close to being complete and I dont think SMG with stated Rotel is either.

JRA

[PeruvianSkies]

Wake up maggie I think I got something to say to you
Its late september and I really should be back at school
I know I keep you amused but I feel Im being used
Oh maggie I couldnt have tried any more
You lured me away from home just to save you from being alone
You stole my heart and thats what really hurt

[Florian]

Without adding fuel to the fire, but when you have a piano 8fooot in the air, why do you blame the speaker? Blame your horrible room acoustics and placement techniques ;-) People should also know that there are huge quality difference amongs planar speaker and to do a 20.1 *which is by no means i my opinion close to the best planar speaker* you have to feed it VERY well in an exellent room. A friend of mine in Washington uses the caliburn turntable, messenger preamp, vtl voutons and custom build tube active crossovers. Thats the sort of euipment, that when used catapults these systems is something quite different.

If you have a 15 year old Maggie (nothing wrong with that), average electronics, no correct room acoustics or dont even own a pair personalyl, then i find it hard to accept any comments from you.

Best of luck

Flo

[GMichael]

I spent a couple of hours with a few Maggies and fell in love with their sound. They mostly played The Eagles and like bands on the 3.6's they had. I also enjoyed the sound from the Totems that day. Maybe that's why I ended up with hybrids. Half planner, half box speaker. I'm very happy now.

[jim goulding]

I used to work in a hi-fi store that sold Mags. Playing around with bass control columns placed behind the Mags could change the sound appreciably. Putting them near the wall directly behind the panels or slightly off center to one side or the other changed things quite a lot. I remember this was quickly discernable on female vocals and bowed instruments that were recorded pretty up front. Mags are rear firing and this was affecting the bounce off the rear wall. You'd think you wouldn't want to do that cause aren't they supposed to have clearance back there. Put something back there and see is my advice. I don't think it has to been a device designed for acoustical control, maybe just a tall object bout 6" to 8" in diameter. It's diffusing the back wave is what it's doing. It made them, the 1.6 models, sound fuller, less recessed, and not so dry. Love to hear what you hear doing this.

[bobsticks]

I'm going to advance a theory with full expectation of being laughed off the forum. I think you have to look at the source, ad I'm not talking about the standard audiophile quibling over whether the Rega or the Marantz resolves better. I think you have to look to the original source and the techniques that guide the production of the music itself.

Rap, hip-hop,dub, rock, hard-rock, techno and the like are all produced electronically and reproduced through professional speakers. Cabs, be they Laney, Mesa, Peavy, Marshall or whatever, will all have large cones. A 15 inch Celestion will adequately reproduce the dynamic difference between a pluck and a strum and pressed full-on will literally move some air. At the same time the dispersion capabilities of these same speakers will be necessarily limited by the physics of the cabinet and directionality. Ever stand behind a stack?

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the punch and dynamics of the original source will be best reproduced by a technology that mirrors the production. To adopt an idea from RGA, a lot of modern music isn't about "imaging" and "transparency". It's about slam.

The implications for the OP are that if rock is your standard fare small Maggies probably aint gonna cut it.

[Jimmy C]

Without adding fuel to the fire, but when you have a piano 8fooot in the air, why do you blame the speaker? Blame your horrible room acoustics and placement techniques ;-) People should also know that there are huge quality difference amongs planar speaker and to do a 20.1 *which is by no means i my opinion close to the best planar speaker* you have to feed it VERY well in an exellent room. A friend of mine in Washington uses the caliburn turntable, messenger preamp, vtl voutons and custom build tube active crossovers. Thats the sort of euipment, that when used catapults these systems is something quite different.

If you have a 15 year old Maggie (nothing wrong with that), average electronics, no correct room acoustics or dont even own a pair personalyl, then i find it hard to accept any comments from you.

Best of luck

Flo

...was a pair of Martin Logans... not sure of the model, but it was one of the largest (save the Statement).

It WAS a well-treated room - those cylindrical traps in the corners, acoustic eggcrate stuff placed strategically, and it was a GOOD size room, probably 30ft x 20 ft... something like that. I know of other stores that jam a big speaker in a small room... doesn't work.

Maybe 8' is an exaggeration, but that instrument was definitely floating up and away - I was seated in the sweet spot, and actually had to look up to "see" the piano. It was recorded in a nightclub, and unless the patrons are about 9' tall, the clanking martini glasses were too high as well.

And the bass... it sounded disjointed and slightly wooly to me. I suppose a conventional woofer simply can't keep up with the panel. Maybe that's why the 'ole CLS is still sought-after.

I would certainly be willing to give 'em another try anytime I have the opportunity, but the place I'm referring to is probably the best-sounding B&M store I know of. He sells ML, Thiel, and Paradigm... he puts on a good demo.

These are just my experiences and opinion. All loudspeakers have trade-offs... it's just a matter of which ones you're willing to live with.

[audio_dude]

I was thinking of getting a pair of used maggies before, but I just don't have the room, or the electronics to make 'em sound good. personally, i believe that if you want to get into planars, at least build our electronis up first.

[RGA]

I must ask you this RGA. Are you basing your optionion based on your dealer friend who used to own a pair of 20.1?
Or the fact some Maggie dealer tell you live at the store for more than 3 month?
I'm not a member of "Let bash on RGA". I really like the way you state your opinions the way I love Flo and RL. Not a problem in that, but I think you need to live with Maggie before you make such statements, cuz it doesnt suit your style.
If you've played with Maggies in a past then please forget about everything above. I dont judge people based on their taste.

JRA

First perhaps I was not clear because I was aiming comments more at the original poster who complained about the sound for give music.

First to get one thing out of the way -- I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the Magnepan 1.6 as one of the best values in the entire audio industry. Let me be very clear that I LIKE them a LOT. That said all loudspeakers are imperfect devices no matter what design or how much you pay. And none of them are even close to perfect designs.

Every designer - well the ones who care about music reproduction and not stamping out products for market share - make their design choices on preference and what they believe is the proper pursuit of sound reproduction. And contrary to what ALL of us on forums and in the magazine press like to believe no one speaker is the ultimate at everything -- not even the MASSIVE Sound Lab that you need a gymnasium sized room for.

The fact is planars and stats have some advantages over boxed designs namely the membrane in a Stat is faster to start and stop than a conventional dynamic woofer. The downside is they do not move nearly as much air so in order to get the bass and "macro" dynamic ability of even an average woofer the panel must be quite large. The 1.6 is a fairly large loudspeaker and it's bass response is on par with a number of two way standmounts using one 5 inch woofer per box.

This is NOT a knock on the maggie or Quads but it is a simple reality if you go that route. This is the number one reason for WHY, and even panel owners must agree, that there are BIGGER panels made by the same company. If the 1.6 was already a full range loudspeaker then there would be no need for the 20.1.

ANd this applies to boxed speakers as well - the Paradigm 100 exists because the Studio 20 does not have the bass or the volume capability to satisfy ME. Now it may satisfy many customer sand that is why the Studio 20 is there but for those of us who want more of everything you have a Studio 100. With Magnepan you have the same thing - some people desire more bass, more volume capability and more refinement -- so you go from MMG to 1.6 to 3.6 to 20.1 etc for your needs. With Quad you buy two sets and stack them.

Now going back to the excellent musically rewarding 1.6 it still nevertheless has shortcomings that other loudspeakers for the same price or less do not have. And it is important to note them when a specific person comes on a forum - especially one who has acknowledged the dissatisfaction with that aspect of sound. Rock, POP, Dance, Trance, Hip Hop, RAP, Country, Jazz/Rock etc are not the strengths of small panels. And while audiophiles can talk about classical and Jazz - these genres make up by far the LEAST amount of music sales. So right away you have loudspeakers that really don't do a great job or often even a good job with the vast majority of music listening tastes.

I was in a pub last night with massive dual concetric Tannoys with two 15 or 18 inch woofers in a massive box. There is just no way that I would be wanting to spend an evening listening to Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Scorpion, Aerosmith, Velvet Underground, The Verve, etc etc on the 1.6 or 3.6 because the experience simply would be a disaster in sound reproduction compared to the Tannoys. Now for acoustic classical and at low volumes the story would be different because the Tannoy does not possess much in the way of finess and this particular model is more about pound -- but it is one of the best speakers I've heard in a bar so kudos goes to the owners for choosing something that does's knock your head off with bright treble and boomy bass.

Let's pretend that the only two speakers on the planet are the 1.6 and the Tannoy I mentioned:

So what you have is two entirely different loudspeakers both of which have advantage and disadvantages -- I suppose Ideally you could buy both and listen to the music it does best on that speaker. If you listen to Rock and you like to listen to it with some scale then you will buy the Tannoy and it is not even a horserace. If you listen to acoustic music to relax to with a glass of wine then it's the Maggie and it's not really a horserace.

Now if you are like me who cuts music fairly evenly down the middle - where I listen to say 10 genres at about the same amount of time for each musical genre then I have a FAR more difficult choice to make. I have to determine which is going to make me happier long term playing all my musical favorites. So does the Tannoy do a more reasonable job with classical than the 1.6 does with rock. So if the Tannoy gets 9/10 for Rock reproduction and the Maggie gets 2/ for rock and the 1.6 gets 9/10 for classical but the Tannoy gets 6/10 then overall the Tannoy would win. On the other hand if I listen to 80% classical and only 20% rock then the Maggie would win.

I bought speakers that take a balance between the two extremes and for me that is the best approach. I would rather the speaker that is a little less capable than the extreme technologies of the Dynamic and stat worlds but crossover to the other well. So if a Quad scores 10/10 for acoustic classical but 2/10 for amplified music and Klipschhorn scores 10/10 for scale and macro dynamics (amplified music) but 2/10 for classical I would rather the speaker that gets 8.5-9/10 in both kinds of music because it is better able to produce all kinds of music at a very very high level if not State of the Art at one thing. Balance over specialization. And some of the speakers from Tannoy exhibit this kind of advantage.

Being in Korea it is quite fun because they are not about new is better - you can listen to old VOice of the theater speakers directly against B&W Nautiuls Diamonds and Wilson Watts with any big name amp you can think of from Levinson, Parasound, Edge, Levinsonce Classe McIntosh of all era's, various panels, Avantguarde horns etc.

Ultimately I have learned some things over the last few months and it really does boil down to your own priorities and what you listen to. I believe in a speaker that can do everything well over specialized loudspeakers but if you take a guy like Art Dudley of Stereophile here is a guy who covers a pretty good variety in what he considers to be the best loudspeakers from panels, to HE/SET systems to Lowther single drivers. I have a gained a huge new appreciation for panels when I listen to them in the context of what they do well and boxed speakers with rare exception are capable of. Interestingly it is the boxed speakers on the fringes of the industry like the big hornsand HE/ SET systems, and panels that hold my interest than stuff in the mainstream like B&W.

The 1.6 in many ways I would say should be at the top of the audition list and I would not spend $2000.00 Cad on a loudspeaker until I heard the 1.6 in a decent set-up. I can;t think of any higher praise than that for a loudspeaker -- despite it's problems for $2k other speakers have problems too and often far bigger ones than Maggie.

That said I hated the sound of the SMG -- But used loudspeakers that are quite old have a lot of wear and tear so even judging that sound is not entirely fair because who knows if they were on their last legs or not or if there are problems with the drivers, caps etc.

Put it this way -- I intend one day to follow someone like Art Dudly and purchases a few different kinds of systems -- I will purchase a panel based system probably from SOund Labs and a single driver system probably around the CM 4 driver.

I have been asked to write for a magazine and as such I need IMO to have references of differing technologies to be credible - to myself or for readers. When I get panels I will have the engineers set-it up properly - especially for speakers that are extremely sensitive to rooms:7:

[PeruvianSkies]

First perhaps I was not clear because I was aiming comments more at the original poster who complained about the sound for give music.

First to get one thing out of the way -- I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the Magnepan 1.6 as one of the best values in the entire audio industry. Let me be very clear that I LIKE them a LOT. That said all loudspeakers are imperfect devices no matter what design or how much you pay. And none of them are even close to perfect designs.

Every designer - well the ones who care about music reproduction and not stamping out products for market share - make their design choices on preference and what they believe is the proper pursuit of sound reproduction. And contrary to what ALL of us on forums and in the magazine press like to believe no one speaker is the ultimate at everything -- not even the MASSIVE Sound Lab that you need a gymnasium sized room for.

The fact is planars and stats have some advantages over boxed designs namely the membrane in a Stat is faster to start and stop than a conventional dynamic woofer. The downside is they do not move nearly as much air so in order to get the bass and "macro" dynamic ability of even an average woofer the panel must be quite large. The 1.6 is a fairly large loudspeaker and it's bass response is on par with a number of two way standmounts using one 5 inch woofer per box.

This is NOT a knock on the maggie or Quads but it is a simple reality if you go that route. This is the number one reason for WHY, and even panel owners must agree, that there are BIGGER panels made by the same company. If the 1.6 was already a full range loudspeaker then there would be no need for the 20.1.

ANd this applies to boxed speakers as well - the Paradigm 100 exists because the Studio 20 does not have the bass or the volume capability to satisfy ME. Now it may satisfy many customer sand that is why the Studio 20 is there but for those of us who want more of everything you have a Studio 100. With Magnepan you have the same thing - some people desire more bass, more volume capability and more refinement -- so you go from MMG to 1.6 to 3.6 to 20.1 etc for your needs. With Quad you buy two sets and stack them.

Now going back to the excellent musically rewarding 1.6 it still nevertheless has shortcomings that other loudspeakers for the same price or less do not have. And it is important to note them when a specific person comes on a forum - especially one who has acknowledged the dissatisfaction with that aspect of sound. Rock, POP, Dance, Trance, Hip Hop, RAP, Country, Jazz/Rock etc are not the strengths of small panels. And while audiophiles can talk about classical and Jazz - these genres make up by far the LEAST amount of music sales. So right away you have loudspeakers that really don't do a great job or often even a good job with the vast majority of music listening tastes.

I was in a pub last night with massive dual concetric Tannoys with two 15 or 18 inch woofers in a massive box. There is just no way that I would be wanting to spend an evening listening to Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Scorpion, Aerosmith, Velvet Underground, The Verve, etc etc on the 1.6 or 3.6 because the experience simply would be a disaster in sound reproduction compared to the Tannoys. Now for acoustic classical and at low volumes the story would be different because the Tannoy does not possess much in the way of finess and this particular model is more about pound -- but it is one of the best speakers I've heard in a bar so kudos goes to the owners for choosing something that does's knock your head off with bright treble and boomy bass.

Let's pretend that the only two speakers on the planet are the 1.6 and the Tannoy I mentioned:

So what you have is two entirely different loudspeakers both of which have advantage and disadvantages -- I suppose Ideally you could buy both and listen to the music it does best on that speaker. If you listen to Rock and you like to listen to it with some scale then you will buy the Tannoy and it is not even a horserace. If you listen to acoustic music to relax to with a glass of wine then it's the Maggie and it's not really a horserace.

Now if you are like me who cuts music fairly evenly down the middle - where I listen to say 10 genres at about the same amount of time for each musical genre then I have a FAR more difficult choice to make. I have to determine which is going to make me happier long term playing all my musical favorites. So does the Tannoy do a more reasonable job with classical than the 1.6 does with rock. So if the Tannoy gets 9/10 for Rock reproduction and the Maggie gets 2/ for rock and the 1.6 gets 9/10 for classical but the Tannoy gets 6/10 then overall the Tannoy would win. On the other hand if I listen to 80% classical and only 20% rock then the Maggie would win.

I bought speakers that take a balance between the two extremes and for me that is the best approach. I would rather the speaker that is a little less capable than the extreme technologies of the Dynamic and stat worlds but crossover to the other well. So if a Quad scores 10/10 for acoustic classical but 2/10 for amplified music and Klipschhorn scores 10/10 for scale and macro dynamics (amplified music) but 2/10 for classical I would rather the speaker that gets 8.5-9/10 in both kinds of music because it is better able to produce all kinds of music at a very very high level if not State of the Art at one thing. Balance over specialization. And some of the speakers from Tannoy exhibit this kind of advantage.

Being in Korea it is quite fun because they are not about new is better - you can listen to old VOice of the theater speakers directly against B&W Nautiuls Diamonds and Wilson Watts with any big name amp you can think of from Levinson, Parasound, Edge, Levinsonce Classe McIntosh of all era's, various panels, Avantguarde horns etc.

Ultimately I have learned some things over the last few months and it really does boil down to your own priorities and what you listen to. I believe in a speaker that can do everything well over specialized loudspeakers but if you take a guy like Art Dudley of Stereophile here is a guy who covers a pretty good variety in what he considers to be the best loudspeakers from panels, to HE/SET systems to Lowther single drivers. I have a gained a huge new appreciation for panels when I listen to them in the context of what they do well and boxed speakers with rare exception are capable of. Interestingly it is the boxed speakers on the fringes of the industry like the big hornsand HE/ SET systems, and panels that hold my interest than stuff in the mainstream like B&W.

The 1.6 in many ways I would say should be at the top of the audition list and I would not spend $2000.00 Cad on a loudspeaker until I heard the 1.6 in a decent set-up. I can;t think of any higher praise than that for a loudspeaker -- despite it's problems for $2k other speakers have problems too and often far bigger ones than Maggie.

That said I hated the sound of the SMG -- But used loudspeakers that are quite old have a lot of wear and tear so even judging that sound is not entirely fair because who knows if they were on their last legs or not or if there are problems with the drivers, caps etc.

Put it this way -- I intend one day to follow someone like Art Dudly and purchases a few different kinds of systems -- I will purchase a panel based system probably from SOund Labs and a single driver system probably around the CM 4 driver.

I have been asked to write for a magazine and as such I need IMO to have references of differing technologies to be credible - to myself or for readers. When I get panels I will have the engineers set-it up properly - especially for speakers that are extremely sensitive to rooms:7:

Wow, what a short response...lol

[RGA]

Yes being succinct is definitely something to work on.:D Still sometimes I write things quickly on forums with rechecking and I get taken the wrong way which leads to spiral threads -- I figure if I write one big post I can avoid some of the flames.:0:

[jrhymeammo]

Well said, RGA but not because you repeaditly praised speakers I own. I dont give a hoot about that.

JRA

[GMichael]

So what you have is two entirely different loudspeakers both of which have advantage and disadvantages -- I suppose Ideally you could buy both and listen to the music it does best on that speaker. If you listen to Rock and you like to listen to it with some scale then you will buy the Tannoy and it is not even a horserace. If you listen to acoustic music to relax to with a glass of wine then it's the Maggie and it's not really a horserace.:

Both! Yes, both. That's what I did. I bought speakers that have planner mids and highs, but also have cone woofers and mid woofers. They may not have the refinement of a set of maggies or the punch of the Tannoys, but they sure sound good to me on all music. And I don't have to keep switching them out every time they bring in new horses.

Oh, and welcome back. I was wondering why your posts were so sort.

[GMichael]

Wow, what a short response...lol

That was nothing. Keep watching.

[E-Stat]

They are all over the map, like a foxy date who is slightly nutty.
As is the case with the quality of recordings.


I think I prefer speakers that are more forgiving with a variety of brilliantly and sloppily recorded material.
High resolution speakers devoid of "editorial comment" are clearly not for you.

rw