Noob Planar Speaker Advice Needed

I have some thoughts.

Maggies vs. Stats:

1.) Maggies are not satisfying at low levels, so like me, if you use your system for long periods at background levels (in between actual listening sessions) you probably won't be happy. Electrostats remain full-bodied at low levels.

2.) Maggies can't (practically speaking) be driven with tubes. They require a lot of voltage in each watt of amplifier output, a feature of SS amplifiers. The opposite is true of electrostats. They require current more than voltage, and tube amps deliver more current (per watt) than SS amps.

3.) If you're willing to bi-amp, you can improve the performance of the larger Maggies by putting a tube amp on the ribbon tweeter/midrange, and a ss amp on the bass panels. However, with the (current models of) MartinLogan electrostats, biamping is not necessary since they already have internal ss amps for the woofers, allowing you to use a nice tube amp for the panel -- in oher words, they are sort of "pre-biamped" ;--)

4.) The smaller Maggies are like smaller box (non planar) electrodyamic speakers. Less is just less. Small electrostatic panels sound just like big ones -- as long as the room is also small; and as with all stats, will need some bass supplementation.

5.) All the Maggies except the very small ones, will do best with solid state amplification. If you opt for a MartinLogan hybrid (stat panel + built-in woofer) then for the best result for the dollar, buy one of the recent models with self-powered woofers so you only need a decent tube amp (the external amp) to drive the panels; giving you the best of both worlds without the expense and hassle of using two different kinds of external amps. With an SL-3 for instance, you won't get the best out of the panel with just an SS amp, nor will you get the best bass if you try and get away with just a tube amp (even a big tube amp.)

6.) There are occasionally used Apogees available within your budget. You may find them a bit off the beaten path in popularity, but not in looks or sonics! And they're coming back for two reasons: first the company has been re-started, and second, we now have amplifiers that are easily up to the take of driving them.

Maggies are not satisfying at low levels, so like me, if you use your system for long periods at background levels (in between actual listening sessions) you probably won't be happy.

That's interesting. I was so taken with the 1.7 at CES that I'm thinking I may want to give them a try, but "not satisfying at low levels" could be a deal breaker.

Drubin, my remark about low level listening with Maggies might not apply to the small(er) models, I don't know because I haven't spent time with any of them.

With the right amplification, they do stand up and sing nicely at higher levels. At lower levels, the ones I'm familiar with sort of thin out at the top and from the lower midrange on down; making it a perfect candidate for a preamp or receiver with a "loudness" control contour circuit.

FWIW - I have heard of the low level listening 'problem' with Maggies before but I think it is only in comparison with something like a Quad ESL which excell at low volume detail. I owned 1.6s for a few years and the thought never occured to me (maybe the bass was down in level a bit but detail seemed fine at low volume) and I am sure the 1.7 must be better than the 1.6 in regard to detail.

Philojet, you are right about the Quad however low listening richness is a quality that extents to all electrostats IMO.