In Reply to: Maggie 3.6R vs 20.1 posted by untangle on July 22, 2010 at 23:53:27:
Having had experience setting up and listening to both the 3.6 and 20.1 in great detail, I will give you my observations. These have been gained from many hours of listening, testing, and helping set up a friends system. He went from 3.6's to 20.1's.
The 3.6 is a very good speaker. Decent bass extension (needs a sub for the lowest of lows), great treble (ribbon), good midrange. It is a pretty good value for the money, but the other 3 series speakers are virtually identical for a fraction of the price. As stated they are good for what they are. They are best suited in medium to large rooms, and are a good alternative to 20.1's if you are lacking in either space or funds.
The 20.1's on the other hand, are a completely different beast all together. They have a slightly larger tweeter, a much bigger bass area, and have push pull midrange. The will play with authority down to the mid to upper 20's. No sub is needed with these speakers, just lots of power to push them. The push pull midrange is fantastic on these. The only downfall to the 20.1's is their huge size and weight. The take up a lot of room, and even with the handles installed on the back they are awkward to move by yourself. With that being said, the sonic benefits from all the trouble of dealing with them are simply amazing. The sound that comes from them is just huge. It is really hard to describe how much better they are than the 3.6's. Don't get me wrong, the 3.6's are great and have their time and place where they are more advantageous (smaller rooms). But if you can afford the money and the space, the 20.1's are the way to go.
I hope this helps you out
-Greg
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Maggie 3.6R vs 20.1 - gregmacknass2@netzero.com 00:58:45 07/23/10 (0)