Magnepan MG 1.7 to be debuted at CES

[Ajani]

Magnepan will Introduce the MG 1.7 at the upcoming CES.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/more-ces-excitement-magnepan-introduces-the-mg-17


after years and years in the Magnepan line, Maggie's superb wooden-framed two-way quasi-ribbon/planar-magnetic 1.6 floorstander is being put out to pasture and in its place comes the aluminum-framed entirely quasi-ribbon two-way 1.7 floorstander with improved parts, crossovers, and panels. And all this for a mere $100 more than the classic 1.6. (The 1.7 is priced at $1995 per pair.)

[Feanor]

Magnepan will Introduce the MG 1.7 at the upcoming CES.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/more-ces-excitement-magnepan-introduces-the-mg-17
Thanks, Ajani.

Jonathan Valin clears up the confusion I had from Steve Guttenberg. So basically the 1.7 is a full-range quasi-ribbon speaker, not a true ribbon speaker. Apparently all drivers including the supertweeter are "quasi-ribbon", this being Magnapan speak for their aluminum foil-on-mylar panels. "True" ribbons don't have the mylar backing.

So indeed the MG 1.7 is quite different from the MG 1.6: (1) the magneto-planar bass is replaced by a quasi-ribbon, and (2) there is supertweeter, also quasi-ribbon. How much better the new is than the old remains to be seen.

So I wonder: will there eventually be an all-new Magnepan line-up with all speakers having quasi-ribbon vs. magneto-planar bass drivers??

[GMichael]

Magnepan will Introduce the MG 1.7 at the upcoming CES.

http://www.avguide.com/blog/more-ces-excitement-magnepan-introduces-the-mg-17

Thanks for posting the news. I'll be interested in reading a few reviews and hopefully getting a chance to hear them myself.

[manlystanley]

I called up Magnepan and asked when the 1.7's will be released. They would not say and had no one that I could talk to about it. They gave me the feeling they were a little unplanned and that this was a media slip.

Best Regards,
Stan

[Florian]

Might as well buy an Analysis Audio. Quassi Ribbon bass and a real ribbon tweeter. Magnepan just copied it

[audio amateur]

Analysis audio isn't even close to being in the same price range. Besides, their availability is probably close to zero in the US.

[bubslewis]

At last year's CES, Magnepan displayed their "mini-maggie" speaker which got a pretty good write up by the guy who was reviewing equipment there. But I haven't heard hide nor hair about them since.
Bill

[Ajani]

Thoughts on the sound of the 1.7 at this year's CES:

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-mg-17-unqualified-triumph

Looks like the 1.7 will be a hit with reviewers...

[blackraven]

I might have to give those a listen, but I sure don't care for the look of the aluminum frame. It looks cheap. I prefer the nice cherry wood frame on my 1.6's.

[manlystanley]

So, first indication, not much difference between the 1.7 and the 1.6...But we'll see.


http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1263206590

[Ajani]

Try Stereophile's blog on the 1.7:

http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2010/magnepan151updating_a_legend/

They seemed to think it was special....

Also of note is that the mini maggies were also on display and finally ready to ship...

[Worf101]

I've NEVER heard Maggies or any other electrostatic speaker design, I don't think I'v ever heard a tweeter of that design. It's on my bucket list though.

Worf

[RGA]

My report will come eventually - I have sent in the first part. I don't know what Valin heard - I went to the same room and heard it considerably differently. YMMV.

[JoeE SP9]

I've NEVER heard Maggies or any other electrostatic speaker design, I don't think I'v ever heard a tweeter of that design. It's on my bucket list though.

Worf

After hearing and buying a pair of MG-1's in 1976 I've had nothing but Maggy's or electrostatics. No "monkey coffin's" for me ever again. Even if you don't like them you owe it to yourself to give them a listen.

[Feanor]

My report will come eventually - I have sent in the first part. I don't know what Valin heard - I went to the same room and heard it considerably differently. YMMV.
Well, as you've said yourself, one has to consider where the reviewer is coming from.

(A person who really likes the AN plywood crate might not be receptive to a Magneplanar.)

[RGA]

Feaner

Not true at all - I have a panel in my top five best rooms at the show. A speaker that is less than half the price of the 20.1 and better in ever possible way. Granted an electrostat but... I also auditioned a couple of ribbon speakers at the budget end and the extreme pricing end and both were in my top 5 or top 10 respectively. I also heard a hybrid panel that they managed to get to gel and it was also in my best grouping.

The fact that AN's room sounded better in every possible way is beside the point - there were tremendous rooms from all sorts of designs with boxes and without. While cheap boxes and bad designs sound bad - of all the panels displayed - there were some that were truly excellent some that truly stunk and some that were mediocre. Magnepan was IMO mediocre. Granted for under $2k they were ok but there were other speakers for similar prices or less that were considerably better and unafraid to let you play your own music.

There were much better panels at the Show and CES - one I have asked for review - it's THAT good. I am highly receptive to quality sound - not receptive to the one brand Magnepan or nothing mantra that you seem to support. And other panels didn't need a center channel to help it out!

[Ajani]

Even if you don't like them you owe it to yourself to give them a listen.
:thumbsup: I 100% Agree....

Even though my own audition of the MG12s left me scratching my head, with the letters WTF stamped across my forehead, I still always include Maggies in my recommendations of speakers in their price ranges.... The reason being that, considering how many consumers and reviewers love them, then there is a possibility that the person I'm advising might love them too...

[RGA]

Check out the show report done by audiofederation. Just click on the play button to skip through the pages. They will apparently add commentary and a show report when they get time. http://spintricity.com/64/public/Vol2-1#/64/6463/jan-2010/got-music

[manlystanley]

A user review on AA says that:

1.7: more technically better.
1.6: More musical and enjoyable.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/14/148656.html

Best Regards,
Stan

[Feanor]

A user review on AA says that:

1.7: more technically better.
1.6: More musical and enjoyable.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/MUG/messages/14/148656.html

Best Regards,
Stan
Thanks, Stan.

A very in-depth review. I'll be sticking with my 1.6's for monetary reasons, but I won't be feeling unduely deprived.

Yes, the 1.6's can sound a tag dull at lower sound levels, and as someone observed, if the 1.7 was less so it would be a good thing. Not that this aspect of the 1.6 has ever bothered me -- at lower levels I want a less obtrusive speaker anyway, eh?

[blackraven]

I'm going to try and audition the 1.7's next week at Audio Perfection here in Minneapolis. I was there on Saturday listening to REL subs and they has the 1.7's playing. Someone placed an order for them. I did not have enough time to sit and listen to them. The pair in the store are the only 1.7's outside the factory in the country.

I don't care for the aluminum frame. The salesman said the metal frame comes in different colors and that you can still order it in the wood trim. He also stated that the 1.7's were more detailed and smoother than the 1.6's. They were selling them for $300 more than the 1.6's at $2200.

[E-Stat]

I've NEVER heard Maggies or any other electrostatic speaker design, I don't think I'v ever heard a tweeter of that design. It's on my bucket list though.
Worfster! They may not be your bag, but you've got to hear them in an optimum environment! Like Joe, I first heard tri-amped Magneplanar Tympani IIIs in 1974 and immediately fell in love. I thought it just didn't get any better than that. I bought a pair of MG-IIs (the lineal predecessor to the 1.6) a year later. In '76, however, I heard Dayton-Wright electrostats and my point of reference got recalibrated. They exhibited a unique coherency that to this day I do not find with any other speaker design. I bought my first pair of Acoustats in '77 and replaced them with Sound Lab U-1s about five years ago.

I really wish I could have heard the magnificent array of SL speakers Ray Kimber showed at RMAF for a couple of years showcasing his discrete four channel recordings. Click on my gallery to see a pic of him standing in front of an array of six 922s.

rw

[Ajani]

Jonathan Valin, of the The Absolute Sound, is clearly loving the 1.7s:

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magneplanar-17-first-listen-repost

[Feanor]

Jonathan Valin, of the The Absolute Sound, is clearly loving the 1.7s:

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magneplanar-17-first-listen-repost
Valin's gungho, that's for sure. Of course, as we know and as he admits, he was long a 1.6 proponent. He certainly had some nice associated equipment to drive them.

I don't know when I'll get to hear the 1.7's. The nearest dealer is in Toronto.

[Ajani]

Valin's gungho, that's for sure. Of course, as we know and as he admits, he was long a 1.6 proponent. He certainly had some nice associated equipment to drive them.

I don't know when I'll get to hear the 1.7's. The nearest dealer is in Toronto.

He may well be gungho, but he's had enough time to determine if he likes them....

I don't like Maggies, but next time I'm in Toronto, I think I need to audition the 1.7s... Would be interesting to see if these ones could change my mind....

[RGA]

I don't like Maggies, but next time I'm in Toronto, I think I need to audition the 1.7s... Would be interesting to see if these ones could change my mind....

The ridiculous thing about that room at CES (I wonder why Valin didn't point any of it out to his readers) was that they were

A) aided by a center channel - which may or may not have helped the stereo spread - the center channel was in the demo and I felt it had less of the head in the vice grip that all other Magnepans I have auditioned have. Is it that the 1.7 is better at this or is it that the center channel shored up the problem? They had 12-15 chairs in the room and probably needed the center to help out - other designs don't need that.

B) everything was completely controlled by the Magnepan/Bryston presenters - no one got to hear their own music and no one got to play anything with bass, and no one got to play it at anythig above what I would call "low" volume levels. Considering they brought massive SS Bryston's you'd think they'd put on something even remotely challenging. Okay so Slayer may be a bit much but how about a simple piano for heaven sake - they play two 3.5-4 minute pieces of violins - oooh tough - and they sounded a bit wonky and overly trebly to me - but I was in the front row right so because it sounded so off - I got up (probably gave the demonstrators a heart attack) and walked to the back center where it was better.

Interestingly, Ray Kimber brought what he said are the best speakers he has heard up to $25k - and they were Sony "boxed" loudspeakers. And Ray was playing wonderful outdoor recorded drum pieces and various other music at difficult levels with tremendous thunder. He too was not taking requests but he was there promoting his ISOMIKE recordings (2 of which I purchased) and was playing hard to reproduce recordings at high levels.

If you didn't like the 1.6 and you like rock - the 1.7 isn't going to change your mind IMO.

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=5093#5093

[Feanor]

He may well be gungho, but he's had enough time to determine if he likes them....

I don't like Maggies, but next time I'm in Toronto, I think I need to audition the 1.7s... Would be interesting to see if these ones could change my mind....
Franky, if you don't like the 1.6's you probably won't like the 1.7's.

Then again, set up has to be appropriate for Maggies. This isn't difficult but must be adequate otherwise "results may vary".

[Ajani]

Franky, if you don't like the 1.6's you probably won't like the 1.7's.

Then again, set up has to be appropriate for Maggies. This isn't difficult but must be adequate otherwise "results may vary".

Actually the only ones I've tried are the 12s.... But I'm interested to know if the setup was just off, since I really found the sound to be awful (which is something I've never experienced with HiFi - boring or bright is what I'm used to for gear I don't like, but never awful - so I still wonder if something was wrong with the setup)...

Chances are I may still not like them, but I really want to give maggies another chance to see what they are capable of (since I listen to a wide range of music (including some Classical and Jazz) - there should be something that I think sounds good on them)...

[Ajani]

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=5093#5093

Good advice... Your insight into Peter Aczel (from an earlier thread) led me to do research on him (as I didn't know the history before)....

As for reviewers, I take all their opinions with a grain of salt... At the end of the day, an opionion is just that; an opinion... So regardless of how knowledgable and experienced a reviewer is, I may totally disagree with his sonic preferences... But I find reviews to be a great starting point for finding products to audition...

[RGA]

Exactly Ajani - the review industry is highly problematic due in part to the structure of the magazines and the honesty of the individual reviewers.

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore on all points he does raise some issue that should be considered when buying into review magazines.

Take the recommended component listing of Stereophile

Under Holt in 1985 there were 9 class A products (combined) in 2000 under Atkinson there were 104 class A recommended components.

"Please consider these statistics carefully. As for myself, I focused on just two obvious and highly relevant details:

In the Summer 1971 issue, there were NO advertisements and 7 components were in "Class A". In the Fall 1985 issue, more than 14 years later, there were still only 9 components in "Class A", despite going from 0 to 47 pages of advertising. However...
J. Gordon Holt was still the Editor during all that time.

Then John Atkinson arrived on the scene.

In short order, there were profound changes, starting from the late 1980's and continuing through the entire 1990's. By April, 1992, there were already 30 components in "Class A". This was just a "warm-up"...

By October 2000, 14 years after Atkinson's arrival, there were 104 components in "Class A". Could there be any "innocent explanations" for this obvious trend? Well, three "excuses" have been used.

Excuse No. 1

The performance of today's components has improved (or "advanced") on those of the past. Assuming that this is a fact, doesn't that mean more components should in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The fact that there were numerous "advancements" is totally irrelevant. This is because each and every new advancement must automatically supercede the previous advancement, or else it wasn't an "advancement" in the first place.

As each new improvement "raises the bar" to get into "Class A", any older model, which can not reach that new "bar", is relegated to "second best", which means they can no longer honestly remain in "Class A", which is supposed to be "the best attainable sound" at that time. Just as the newest, fastest computer chips relegate the older chips to "second fastest or best". Ruthless logic yes, but true when you are talking about "the best".

This principle is the primary reason why all of the numerous, earlier advancements during "The Holt Era", from 1971 to 1985, did NOT result in an increase in the "Class A" recommendations.

Excuse No. 2

There are more components available now than ever before. Doesn't that mean that more components should be in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The best is the best, no matter how many "participants" are competing for that "title".

An Example: There were far more competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics "than ever before", but there were still only 3 medals given out for each event. In pro sports, there is just one "all-star team", no matter how many expansion teams and new players are added.

Stereophile, between 1971 and 1985, faced a huge, relative increase in the available number of components (plus the advent of accepting advertising). Even so, during this entire 14 year period, under J. Gordon Holt's direction, Stereophile went from 7 to only 9 "Class A" components.

This historical fact is the final proof that there is not any "law" or "rule" that the Editor must increase his "Class A" recommendations just because there are a greater variety of components.../...

"Class A"?

In October 2000, there were 46* amplifiers alone in Class A, the so-called "best attainable". There are still dozens as this is written. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest, in every sense of that expression, can claim there are 46 "best" anything's. (Do you know anyone with 46 "best friends"?) All the other Class A component categories have had similar, totally implausible expansions.

Atkinson even created a new Class, "A+", which is even better than "the best"! In all human history, and in all human cultures, it has been philosophically impossible to be better than the best, except in Stereophile. It's not even a rare occurance. In fact, in their April 2003 RCL, there were more Digital Processors in Class A+ (7), than in Class C (2)!

*During the publishing control of J. Gordon Holt, from 1962 all the way to the middle 1970's, the highest number of amplifiers in Class A was 4. The lowest number of amplifiers in Class A was 1. Holt kept only that one single amplifier in Class A even after it was discontinued. This means Holt refused to place even one unworthy component into Class A, because he understood and respected the true meaning of the word "best". Now compare Holt's intellectual integrity to that displayed by John Atkinson." http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html

Now I want to say that I don't agree with Arthur on his attacks of Atkinson (and there is a heavy dose of unsubstantiated and unfair attacks) who very may well feel that such league tables are valuable - it is not dishonesty to have a different view than the guy you replace. Nevertheless, I do agree that having so many "class A" products and rave reviews dilutes what truly is the best of the best.

I think that such a league table would or should operate as a bell curve such that the best of the best would be in the smallest percentile - that's what best is supposed to mean.

Even then it is still just opinion - the best thing to do is find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. I like HE and SET based systems more than big power low efficiency systems and I believe a system should be able to play all music because the stereo should not care what is being played - it's job is to reproduce it. Others do not agree with that assessment and so they should find other reviewers who may offer them better help.

Audio reviewing is not all that different than movie reviewing. No matter what your favorite critic says - you're not going to agree 100% of the time.

Mike at AudioFederation and I agree 100% on Audio Note speakers and systems and many other rooms at CES but he HATED the Sony speakers and didn't like Magico speakers - I felt they were some of the better rooms at CES. The Sony just about made my top 5. So even though I trust Mike's advice - there are some polar opposite views.

I like Gordon's elite listing and I think that over time I may develop such a scheme of ranking. I went to over 70 rooms at CES and I could point to maybe 3 loudspeakers that I felt were true standouts. Then maybe another 10 that were excellent but a step down and then another group of good quality sound but didn't do it for me perhaps at the prices they were charging.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The ridiculous thing about that room at CES (I wonder why Valin didn't point any of it out to his readers) was that they were

A) aided by a center channel - which may or may not have helped the stereo spread - the center channel was in the demo and I felt it had less of the head in the vice grip that all other Magnepans I have auditioned have. Is it that the 1.7 is better at this or is it that the center channel shored up the problem? They had 12-15 chairs in the room and probably needed the center to help out - other designs don't need that.

B) everything was completely controlled by the Magnepan/Bryston presenters - no one got to hear their own music and no one got to play anything with bass, and no one got to play it at anythig above what I would call "low" volume levels. Considering they brought massive SS Bryston's you'd think they'd put on something even remotely challenging. Okay so Slayer may be a bit much but how about a simple piano for heaven sake - they play two 3.5-4 minute pieces of violins - oooh tough - and they sounded a bit wonky and overly trebly to me - but I was in the front row right so because it sounded so off - I got up (probably gave the demonstrators a heart attack) and walked to the back center where it was better.

Interestingly, Ray Kimber brought what he said are the best speakers he has heard up to $25k - and they were Sony "boxed" loudspeakers. And Ray was playing wonderful outdoor recorded drum pieces and various other music at difficult levels with tremendous thunder. He too was not taking requests but he was there promoting his ISOMIKE recordings (2 of which I purchased) and was playing hard to reproduce recordings at high levels.

If you didn't like the 1.6 and you like rock - the 1.7 isn't going to change your mind IMO.

Ajani - be careful about the reviewers you read - you may want to read up on this individual before you put a whole lot of stock in him - same warning goes for Peter Aczel who was reviewing stuff he sold. http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=5093#5093

Rich,
What do you think of Kimbers ISOMIKE recordings? I got my hands on a recording of the Blue Knights and Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps called High Altitude Drums. The dynamic range on this recording will blow the hair off of your head!

[RGA]

Yes that happens to be the one Ray was showing with the Sony speakers - I know Sony speakers can you believe it? It was also one of the ones I purchased - I was chatting to the mastering engineer I believe who happens to live about 20 minutes from my place.

This is why I made an exception for Ray Kimber because while he controlled the music - he at least played demanding music. And the Sony speakers with Pass Labs amps and EMM front end was certainly one of the ten best rooms at the show. I think I had the room just out of my top five but it was very very close.

There were quite a lot of nice sounding rooms - it would have been nice to go in with these recordings to put some of them to a more demanding test than Dianna Krall and the various male vocal equivalents of Dianna Krall.

It is certainly a nice test for bass and dynamics and at volume.

[Ajani]

Exactly Ajani - the review industry is highly problematic due in part to the structure of the magazines and the honesty of the individual reviewers.

While I don't agree with Arthur Salvatore on all points he does raise some issue that should be considered when buying into review magazines.

Take the recommended component listing of Stereophile

Under Holt in 1985 there were 9 class A products (combined) in 2000 under Atkinson there were 104 class A recommended components.

"Please consider these statistics carefully. As for myself, I focused on just two obvious and highly relevant details:

In the Summer 1971 issue, there were NO advertisements and 7 components were in "Class A". In the Fall 1985 issue, more than 14 years later, there were still only 9 components in "Class A", despite going from 0 to 47 pages of advertising. However...
J. Gordon Holt was still the Editor during all that time.

Then John Atkinson arrived on the scene.

In short order, there were profound changes, starting from the late 1980's and continuing through the entire 1990's. By April, 1992, there were already 30 components in "Class A". This was just a "warm-up"...

By October 2000, 14 years after Atkinson's arrival, there were 104 components in "Class A". Could there be any "innocent explanations" for this obvious trend? Well, three "excuses" have been used.

Excuse No. 1

The performance of today's components has improved (or "advanced") on those of the past. Assuming that this is a fact, doesn't that mean more components should in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The fact that there were numerous "advancements" is totally irrelevant. This is because each and every new advancement must automatically supercede the previous advancement, or else it wasn't an "advancement" in the first place.

As each new improvement "raises the bar" to get into "Class A", any older model, which can not reach that new "bar", is relegated to "second best", which means they can no longer honestly remain in "Class A", which is supposed to be "the best attainable sound" at that time. Just as the newest, fastest computer chips relegate the older chips to "second fastest or best". Ruthless logic yes, but true when you are talking about "the best".

This principle is the primary reason why all of the numerous, earlier advancements during "The Holt Era", from 1971 to 1985, did NOT result in an increase in the "Class A" recommendations.

Excuse No. 2

There are more components available now than ever before. Doesn't that mean that more components should be in "Class A"?

Answer: NO!

The best is the best, no matter how many "participants" are competing for that "title".

An Example: There were far more competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics "than ever before", but there were still only 3 medals given out for each event. In pro sports, there is just one "all-star team", no matter how many expansion teams and new players are added.

Stereophile, between 1971 and 1985, faced a huge, relative increase in the available number of components (plus the advent of accepting advertising). Even so, during this entire 14 year period, under J. Gordon Holt's direction, Stereophile went from 7 to only 9 "Class A" components.

This historical fact is the final proof that there is not any "law" or "rule" that the Editor must increase his "Class A" recommendations just because there are a greater variety of components.../...

"Class A"?

In October 2000, there were 46* amplifiers alone in Class A, the so-called "best attainable". There are still dozens as this is written. Only someone who is intellectually dishonest, in every sense of that expression, can claim there are 46 "best" anything's. (Do you know anyone with 46 "best friends"?) All the other Class A component categories have had similar, totally implausible expansions.

Atkinson even created a new Class, "A+", which is even better than "the best"! In all human history, and in all human cultures, it has been philosophically impossible to be better than the best, except in Stereophile. It's not even a rare occurance. In fact, in their April 2003 RCL, there were more Digital Processors in Class A+ (7), than in Class C (2)!

*During the publishing control of J. Gordon Holt, from 1962 all the way to the middle 1970's, the highest number of amplifiers in Class A was 4. The lowest number of amplifiers in Class A was 1. Holt kept only that one single amplifier in Class A even after it was discontinued. This means Holt refused to place even one unworthy component into Class A, because he understood and respected the true meaning of the word "best". Now compare Holt's intellectual integrity to that displayed by John Atkinson." http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html

Now I want to say that I don't agree with Arthur on his attacks of Atkinson (and there is a heavy dose of unsubstantiated and unfair attacks) who very may well feel that such league tables are valuable - it is not dishonesty to have a different view than the guy you replace. Nevertheless, I do agree that having so many "class A" products and rave reviews dilutes what truly is the best of the best.

I think that such a league table would or should operate as a bell curve such that the best of the best would be in the smallest percentile - that's what best is supposed to mean.

Even then it is still just opinion - the best thing to do is find a reviewer with a similar ear to you. I like HE and SET based systems more than big power low efficiency systems and I believe a system should be able to play all music because the stereo should not care what is being played - it's job is to reproduce it. Others do not agree with that assessment and so they should find other reviewers who may offer them better help.

Audio reviewing is not all that different than movie reviewing. No matter what your favorite critic says - you're not going to agree 100% of the time.

Mike at AudioFederation and I agree 100% on Audio Note speakers and systems and many other rooms at CES but he HATED the Sony speakers and didn't like Magico speakers - I felt they were some of the better rooms at CES. The Sony just about made my top 5. So even though I trust Mike's advice - there are some polar opposite views.

I like Gordon's elite listing and I think that over time I may develop such a scheme of ranking. I went to over 70 rooms at CES and I could point to maybe 3 loudspeakers that I felt were true standouts. Then maybe another 10 that were excellent but a step down and then another group of good quality sound but didn't do it for me perhaps at the prices they were charging.

I responded to this point in a new thread I just started in the General Section:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=33249