Comparison of Magnepan 1.6QR to the 3.3R

I currently own 3.3R's and traded up from 1.6QR's so I can give you some recent comparisons. First of all,the 3.6R is a different animal than either the 1.6 or 3.3.In comparison with the 3.6R the 3.3R is less dynamic overall(not drastically assuming the same system for both) with tighter bass and more coherence of the panel drivers. The changes were made to the X-overs,drivers and revision of the cabinet frame. . Tonally they are very similar and soundstaging wise also very close.The 3.5R was mostly a X-over change and typically Bi-amping a 3.3R will bring the sound closer to the 3.5R

As for the 1.6QR. This is a very good speaker that is more amp friendly,a fairly constant 4 ohm load,where the 3.3R will dip in the midrange to about 3 ohm or so. But as for the sound, they both share the maggie magic and correctly driven and placed in the listening room will disappear. The 1.6 is the more vivid and forward presentation with tighter bass and sounds very,very good IMHO.

However...The music really starts to get serious with the 3.3R. There's just no getting around that awesome ribbon tweeter. sweet,extended without any trace of hash or hardness and imaging and soundstaging that compare with the best. This is a world class speaker all the way! Feed it fairly high power tubes or high power solid state(you can read all the hundreds of "which amp should I use for my maggies"" articals and threads here and elsewhere. but current and stability of the amp into lower ohm loads are key. A very good tube pre-amp, and the best front end sources you can afford and the correct placement in your room will make you smile for a very long time! The presentation is more relaxed with a better sense of instrumental placement and staging. Vocals are breathtaking and have more natural space. Deeper and wider soundstaging.and deeper,more authoritative bass. If you like classical,chamber,vocal,any jazz , this is your speaker. The cost difference is very minimal as was pointed out. Probably $300-$400. max to get into the 3.3R's. I'd check them out for sure!

Never compared these directly, but I always loved the 3.3 when it was around, and at the time it was clearly better than the smaller Maggies of its day.

I assume the 3.3s are older than the latest Maggie technology...Jim W. of Magnepan openly proclaimed that the 1.6s were superior to the (at the time) current 2.7s..which featured the ribbon tweeter...the ribbon tweeter might be superior on its own...but the coherence and the bass of the 1.6 is what really has made it the giant killer it is...even after hearing the 3.6s...I would be hard pressed to go beyond the 1.6s...Maggies are very room sensitive...so unless you have a huge room...the 1.6s will treat you right...

Just a note: The 2.7's were a "QR" (quasi-ribbon) designated speaker, like the 1.6's. The 2.6R however did have the true ribbon tweeter. From what I unerstand, the biggest fundamental difference between the 3.6 and earlier 3-series iterations is that it features mid and pass panels driven from both the front and back instead of just one side. There is no reason I can think of why the quasi-ribbon tweeter would be any easier (or harder) to integrate with the other panels than the true ribbon tweeter, but it will not offer the same extension, dispersion, and speed. None of which means the 1.6's won't sound good.

Zaikesman...you are correct..the 2.7s were a QR design...maybe I was thinking of the 2.6s...at any rate...the cohesion of the 1.6s over the 1.5s and the 2.7s has to do with crossover adjustments(among other things I assume)...with the faster tweeter doing a bit more midrange work(600hz vs. 1000hz in the 1.5s)...this has resulted in a more seamless presentation that many have commented on...as well as the 1.6 being more dynamic than previous designs(assuming quality power)...