|
Posts: 3082
Location: South FL
Joined: May 18, 2008
Contributor
Since: July 26, 2010
|
The B model is really nicely done and sounds impressive within its power band. I think ET did a terrific job for a $2k planar with ribbons. I always mention it to friends who may prefer a more dynamic rendition than full planars typically offer. OTOH, on various sessions, the ribbon tweeter on the 8b never showed me "ribbon tweeter performance" like the 3.6 or 3.7s do.
The 1.7 is another bargain. However, I have never heard them and the 8b in the same room. I have used some of my same music on both but my exposure to the 1.7s has been much longer if only in a demo room. BTW, the 1.7s took their time to sound good. I visited the dealer along several weeks before I started liking them.
While I can endorse the 8B for some of my friends, if I had (myself) $2k I could go for 1.7s...but only on my way to get 3.7s. The 1.7's tweeter is not ribbon and it does not pretend. It just sounds great until one hears the same music in the 3.7s. So, it MAY be that it is closer to the 8b tweeter sound.
At the other extreme, the 8b are more bass dynamics (and extension) than the 1.7s. Where things get tricky is on the detail part. Down to its less dynamic low limits, the 1.7 keeps finding rich detail. The 8b's cone woofer is not shabby at all, just a good...cone. Not helping: it crosses so high that it trades detail for impulse response. Then again, I would not be unhappy if I had to live with the 8b. Indeed, a friend who owns good cone speakers gave them the edge on this count.
Midrange performance is one thing I've never found a problem with on either. They each have an integrated personality with their own totality. For example, the 8b nicely zings you with the lower notes of a guitar that fall in the woofer's range. Yet, as the same guitar goes up higher and into the panels range, there's no impression of breakdown or discontinuity. This surprised me and it suggests hard work on making that cone behave harmoniously with the panel. Still, the slightly less lower end zing in the 1.7 comes with a better leading-edge texture. The same guitar on the 1.7s is enchanting in what seems to be harmonics and perhaps decays. At first, I thought it could be the 1.7s room but later I heard the 8Bs in a 2nd setting and this still did not come across as with the 1.7. To me, it is just a matter of subjective preference; one on which I could switch back and forth depending on the day and mood.
Having spent the least time playing vocals all I can say is that neither of them ever sounded wrong to me. On the contrary, I was drawn to each in manners that suspended the ability to judge properly. They are not the same but I can't remember the differences.
If I had a reservation with the 8b, it could be imaging as compared to the Maggies, not just 1.7s. For some reason, the 8b -- in two quite different settings -- never impressed me to the extent Maggies can. Now, anyone who has never heard what planar imaging can do, would be delighted with what I've heard from the 8b. It was excellent imaging. The Maggies just seem to be a bit more eager to show off on this count and I have to admit that I am particularly partial to good imaging.
Since you had the 1.6, I should add that it seems like Magnepan made the 1.7s frequency response more flat than I remember the 1.6 having.
|
