Magnepan 2.7QR vs 1.6?

I was considering buying new 1.6s until I had a chance to compare them side by side to a used pair of 2.7QRs at my house. For the test I used an Aragon 4004MKII amp, Adcom GFP565 preamp and a Sony DVP-S7700 CD. They both sounded very similar in the midrange on up but the 2.7s had more bass to my ears and it sounded more accurate. This makes sense since the 2.7s woofer section is about 40% larger than the 1.6s (620sqin vs 442sqin). The 1.6s may have an edge in dynamics but it was subtle.
So I went with the 2.7s for $1,000. Are my ears wacked or do other Audiogon readers have the same opinion? I've read other reviews here stating the 1.6s are a step up from the 2.7s but I had to go with my ears. Also, the 2.7s were $2,000-$2,200 new in 1994 and the 1.6s are about $1,600-$1,700 now. So the 2.7s would probably go for $2,500+ if they were retailed today new.
I agree. The 2.7's sound much better to my ears. I heard them side by side in a demo at an audio dealer when the 2.7's were being closed out. The biggest difference to me was in the highs. The ribbon tweeter of the 2.7's outperformed the Quasi-ribbon of the 1.6's by a huge margin. No, your ears are not whacked. If, i could find a mint pair for what you paid for them, i'd buy them.
The 2.7 is qr it is not a ribbon. The 2.6 is a ribbon. I have a pair of the the 2.7qr. The 1.6qr is still a large step down. I am looking to sell my 2.7qr's for $850.00 if anyone is interested.

Yes, the 2.5Rs (1987) and 2.6Rs (1990) both used a true ribbon tweeter. Both were 2-ways. Then the 2.7 (1994) was a 3-way and used the quasi-ribbon.
Reb1208, do you use a subwoofer with your 2.7s? I'm using a Paradigm X-30 Bass Controller with a sub that's separately amplified. The Paradigm has a control for the crossover frequency and it usually sounds best crossed over at about 60HZ. Any higher and the bass is too boomy.
Thanks for both of your guys' responses.
What's the difference (construction and performance) between a ribbon and a quasi-ribbon?
I bought my 2.7QR in '94 and after adding the Warner 300 amps it brought out the bass and was happy for a long time. Now it is time for a change and also are going to sell mine as I am waiting for a new pair of Kharma's to arrive.

In the right setup they are certainly very good.
I owned both and found the 1.6's more dynamic and tighter bass, a very good speaker indeed. although the bass on the 2.7's was deeper, yet less accurate in my system(then). I really prefered the 2.7's overall for their warmer and smoother highs and less forward upper mid presentation. In my system which was by no means anywhere near a reference system,( Orig.Rega Planet, Audible Illusions 2C pre, Acoustat TNT 200 amp, Audioquest Midnights and emeralds..) To small a room..I did not get the best from either speaker.In fact my brother in law( A very good rock bass player) was very unimpressed with the 2.7's bass and commented that he couldn't tell if the bass was an upright or amplified bass).. With the right components and room set up however Im sure they would have been better for me. In fact, the day I traded them in for another speaker at my local dealers we set them up to audition and I was very suprised at how good they sounded and thought maybe I should have kept them. The bass was actually so much improved with better equipment. In hindsight, all they really needed was a lot better equipment and better placement If I had to choose between them again, Id go with the 2.7's for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning, and mate them with the proper equipment but that would go for either( or any other) also.--Cheers! Ken
Hi Noble 100,

I only recently aquired these from the original owner ( a friend). The bass in my room clearly goes down below 35hz with the 2.7's. My thinking about adding "cones" to augment the bass on a Maggie is this: To my ears you would need two drivers, one "subwoofer"- the other to play mid-bass. Since I know of no product that has both a powered 10" and 7" cone in the same box. So the 2.7's play on their own. Better off having two pairs of speakers IMO. Switch off when you get tired of one type of sound.
I agree that it's hard to match a sub with planar and electrostatics but there's something very satisfying about the lowest octaves. Also, I can switch off the sub and listen just to the magnepans when I want. The 2.7s's bass extends quite a ways in my room (15'x18')and it's tighter without the sub. The closer the speakers are to the corners and wall the tighter the bass but the imaging and soundstage suffers. So I move the speakers out when listening to music and leave them back when watching movies.

I'm not sure of the differences between the True Ribbon and the Quasi in terms of performance and construction. I was originally considering the IIIAs, which have the True Ribbon, but never heard them. I heard the 3.6s and they were impressive but too expensive for my budget. I think the True Ribbon is lighter and therefore quicker in transients but I'm not sure.
Simple the 2.6 r was the best two way they ever made with a true ribbon tweeter I have a pair and ther incrediable when set up just right