If it's the same 1.7 review I read that was referred to above, where the guy gave a low score "because they delaminate": he was NOT saying the 1.7s have delaminated, he was saying they might
delaminate like other (older) Maggies have sometimes
been known to, and thus he was lowering the score.
I hope nobody pays any attention to somebody who thinks like that and lives their life like that. I'm surprised he could even review Maggies lying in bed in a padded room, and using dangerous electricity that might
hurt him someday.
BTW, they are excellent for HT, at least for fronts and maybe more if you can get the wall-spacing far enough. However, until you have actually measured
the distortion they have in the lower bass, below the typical BM XO, do not believe you don't need a sub(s) like some Maggie-freaks say. If you don't measure the distortion like most people don't, then you are free to believe they have great quality (low) bass. It never
happens that the best place in a room for (low) bass reproduction is the best place to position a Maggie. Never. I guess that is mainly relevant to stereo users, HT people would already know that.