MMGs

I'm fortunate enough to have a Maggie retailer within walking distance of my house. I was able to compare the .7's and the 1.7's one afternoon and I preferred the .7's over the 1.7's. 

While the 1.7's definitely provided more low end response, my ears found the .7's to be more articulate (?) overall. With a suitable sub - not the Maggie bass panel - I believe you'd have everything the 1.7's add without spending more than the cost of 1.7's themselves. 

I think, new, the .7's are about $1500?  The 1.7's $2,000?  The math works, and to my ears so does the sonics. PLUS, the .7's are considerably smaller. 

Voila. 

ps, how'd you characterize the differences between the MMG and the .7? Just curious.  

I don't know if I would venture into 3.3 territory, Maggies that old are bound to have delamination issues.  Just as an FYI - John does not recommend any .7 Maggies, at least not if the long term goal is to have them modded.  He explains in detail on his website why.  I am not going to agree or disagree, I have not listen to .7 or 1.7. 

randy-11 - MDF will absorb a little bit of vibration, but nowhere near enough.  I used to built sub boxes for car audio for years out of various types of MDF, so I am familiar with the material.  Take a stock Maggie, say a 12, turn it up to fairly loud level, and feel the frame.  You'll feel very little vibration, it will feel disproportional to the volume.  Try the same with a gunned Maggie, and you'll feel quite a bit more vibration on the wooden frame.  Natural wood dissipates vibrations far better.

I think the choice between the .7, the 1.7 and the 3.7 aside from the cost and budget is the size of your room and adjoining open space. My listening room is 14' W x 24' L with a vaulted ceiling and an additional 12' x 12' adjoining, open dining area off to the left. The 1.7s seem to be a perfect fit in my space. I have considered upgrading to the 3.7i, but in my space, maybe a bit more than needed and several thousand more dollars.
The set up mentioned by ps is very close to what have. With the tweeter sections to the outside and toed in very slightly, the image stays very stable and on stage. Even if you aren't sitting dead center in the sweet spot, vocals remain center stage and instruments stay where they belong - kind of nice when sharing the couch with someone else not to have to draw straws for the sweet spot.
Gotta agree with ps, mostly hyperbole, I think. Over the years I've had and auditioned many very nice and some very expensive speakers; some of my very favorites being my old Quad ESL 63s and the Apogee Duetta II Sigs. I will always have a love for electrostats and ribbons. Right now, I am most happy with the 1.7s 
Jim

"ps, how’d you characterize the differences between the MMG and the .7? Just curious."

As many have said, the MMG’s are one heck of a speaker for the money and otherwise. I surely agree. The same can be said for the .7’s, which, for me, are a considerable improvement. Sound stage is larger, especially side-to-side, with greater detail, clarity, a bit more depth, and better, more "effortless" bass response.  I feel no need to augment them with subwoofers.

Overall, there is simply, for me, more "planar magic." I also found the .7’s easier to set up than the MMGs. As we all know, much in this wonderful, crazy hobby of ours is YMMV. In this case, I do think one gets what one pays for, and then some. Kudos to Magnepan, a great American speaker company.

I’m very pleased.