Comparison of Magnepan 1.6QR to the 3.3R


I'm looking for observations from anyone who's had the chance to audition these two speakers. I've listened to the 1.6 and 3.6 and liked the clarity, bass response and overall sound of the 3.6. I'm wondering if the 3.3 performs anywhere near as well. The 1.6 was very satisfying though and I could be happy with its sound.

The room I'll be using them in is 15' x 30' with 7'3" ceiling, a finished basement, and I plan to match the source components to the speakers.

If price was not an issue, which would you buy? I'm planning to listen to the 3.3s but it requires a long drive which I'd like to avoid. Thanks.
greendew
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)...
That could be entirely possible - as I said at the top, I haven't made this comparsion - but I just didn't want the blame to be laid at the feet of the ribbons when there are so many other factors involved, and I'm sure Maggie has refined their designs in more than a couple of areas since two model generations ago.
Thanks for all the posts, good comments. I'm going to audition some 3.3Rs tonight. I'll be looking for how well they present themselves as a single driver and how the ribbon compares to the 3.6.

Played with some room layouts last night and looked at speaker placement options. The top of a 6' tall 3.3R will be about a foot and a half from my 7'3" ceiling. Any thoughts on what effect that may have?