I have MMGs and will be sending them in to get "Gunned" this February. I've listened to the MG12 with the Magnestand modification and the Magnepan 1.7s. Based on that I'm thinking that when I get my MMGs back they are likely to be much better sounding than the 1.7s. Read what Peter Gunn has to say about the 1.7 and what "improvement" was done to them at Magnepan and you might shy away from them.

http://www.indiespinzone.com/mag/mag1.7.html

Seriously, ...wow! Admittedly, I also could not believe the criticism he applies on the 1.7s, but he talks about tech stuff that I am not really engaging into. The truth is that next to the Vandersteens, I preferred the Magnepan 1.7s. Not by a great margin, but it was a clear win, not a 4-0 triumph in a soccer game, but a 3-2. The issue I am facing is that as long as technology is good enough to produce a great sound, I do not mind its flaws. But if those modified MMGs can beat the 1.7s, well hey, I will go with them. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to listen to any Magnestands yet but I will take your word for it.
One more thing I need to point out is that the 1.7s suffered the least that "sweet spot" effect. Of the three speaker systems I listened to, they were filling the space better than any other. It may be the size or something, but boy I really do not care about all those soap bubbles and glitter of the Bose 901s. I recall the fullness my old AR9s used to give in the room and the 1.7s were doing it about as well but with an even more refined sound. I'm looking forward to get some Magnestands now.
Thanks Jackfish

I should have mine sometime this Spring. Perhaps you can come and listen to them if you have time.

I would love to.

"Stock I find the 1.6 very bright and fatiguing after 15-20 minutes" says the gentleman that makes money by "modifying" Magnepans. Maybe Maggies do sound better after he's worked his magic (FOR HOW MUCH?) but I've never found any pair of Magnepans I've owned to be "bright and fatiguing".... very far from it.

I know that as audiophiles we're always looking achieve the best sound possible from our equipment but this seems like it crosses a line to me. If you want to make a more rigid stand for Maggies that's one thing but to say about the 1.7: "The crossover on this model comes right out of a horror flick" but for a price you will fix everything that Magnepan did wrong. Of course, all Jim Winey did was actually invent the Magneplanar speaker.

Maybe I'm 100% wrong, I know that audiophiles have their electronics upgraded at times by people selling/installing better parts to replace those that came stock.

I wonder if a company would be allowed to remove all the drivers from a new pair of B&W 800 Diamond (after making a case for where B&W went wrong with their design)and then place them in THEIR similar styled yet more stout box and sell them without being sued by B&W?

Just a question, like I said maybe I'm completely mistaken and maybe there is nothing at all wrong about what this gentleman is doing or how he goes about it.

Nothing wrong at all, in fact very right. The MG12 Magnestands I listened to side by side Vandersteen 5As were as good or better except they didn't dig as deep. Nothing a Rythmik sub woofer can't alleviate. Not bad for $10,000 less.

Admittedly they sound better than the 1.7s.  I always stress out when it comes to such transformations etc., but the sound is exquisite.  I compare them to my ol and faithful AR9s.    It is a difficult comparison.  The base of the AR9s is superior but the detail of the Magnestands is unsurpassed.

I'm sure with all the personal rave reviews about the Magnestand Modification it must sound pretty darn good. I own a pair of Magnepan MMG's and love them. I can only imagine what the Gunned Mod must sound like. That said, at a cost of $1,575.00 for the MMG mod and the price of the MMG's themselves', that's a total cost of around $2,200.00.....

If I had that kind of money to spend on one pair of speakers that would give me many choices including the 1.7's which have gotten great reviews..

Although Magneplanars are among my favorite speakers and IMO the MMG is the speaker to buy for $600 or less, I must comment. Spending almost 3 times what a speaker costs for an upgrade is IMO not cost effective. +$2200 for a speaker that has limited overall volume capability and anemic bass is a bit much. When you include a sub woofer of equivalent quality you're coming close to $3000.

You can get some nice ML Electromotion ESL's for $2195 or the Magnepan 1.7's for roughly the same price.

How about someone comparing those two speakers?

Vandersteen 2Ce Signature IIs?

Definitely the Maggies 1.6 transformed have a sweet sound.  The delicate detail and the clarity as it all comes out of a Marantz 2500 (very powerful amp the way they are certainly not made anymore) makes these transformations worth the price. But, again, I had to compare them to the old faithful Acoustic Research pair that I had and got the woofers replaced before Teledyne/AR died.  Seriously, the way those fill the room with music is a different thing.  I was under the impression that the clarity and detail of the transformed Maggies was surpassing the AR-9 speakers.  Nope, that's not the case for me.  Don't get me wrong, the Magnestands are exceptionally good and I prefer them to anything I listened to around, including some ultra expensive vandersteins, paradigms, etc.  Yet, the fullness and the sense of being within the orchestra gives an edge to the AR pair.  So sad such great companies close down to the commercial monsters.  For the spaker comparisons....after all Herbert von Karajan did not chose the AR-9s for their looks.
I still want to thank Jackfish for his input.  I am very happy I managed to get these Maggies and have them transformed.

http://audio-database.com/AR/amp_speaker/ar-9(1).JPG 

I know those from all perspective angles!  I had them for 20 years and they are still the best thing that happened to classical music for me.  The maggies are a very close second.