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

Showing 4 responses by zaikesman

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.
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.
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.
The ceiling height should have no particular effect on a line-source driver, which is why Maggies can start at the bottom with their driver surface in very close proximity to the floor. The reverberent soundfield of low-ceilinged listening rooms is never preferable to those with somewhat more generous boundary spacing (relative to the listener's ears) in my view, but in your room that would be the case no matter what speaker was used. (Like most of us, I have an 8ft. ceiling which isn't very different in height from your own, and would probably prefer if my room was a couple of feet taller.) The bigger question with dipole radiators is giving them adequate room to the rear, I would usually say a minimum of 5-6ft. out or more, and since flat panels must be toed-in to point directly at the listener's ears (so as to avoid severe HF roll-off), that distance requirement also affects how close you can place them to the sidewalls, probably 2-3ft. min. Compensating virtues are that you don't need to sit quite as far away from the speakers as with many multi-point-source speakers for the sound to be coherent, and yet you also won't lose the immediacy of the response as quickly when you move farther away either, plus the bass response is not as sensitive to boundary reinforcement effects. Which is important because with dipole panels, midrange interference effects can cause changes in where the speakers and the listeners sit to have a greater impact on the overall perceived spectral balance than is usually the case with conventional monopole quasi-point-source speakers. In other words, Maggies can sound pretty great just plopped down anywhere, but really fine-tuning speaker (and listener) placement can still be a bitch (no matter what the ceiling height :-).