ProAc Response 1.5s vs. Meadowlark Shearwater HRs

Does anyone have extended listening experience with either of these models? The ProAcs offer 5db more bass in the specs but do they really offer better bass? Thanks, John in Miami
Can't compare my Shearwaters HRs with these ProAcs, sorry, but I know the 3.8 a little. Naturally the 3.8 bass was awesome. I was listening in a large room, too.

However I was just thinking today how happy I am with the bass response I do get. It's deep, controlled and tuneful, beautifully defined. I could take a notch more of it but I might not like that in the long run. I run a Sima Celeste W-4070se ( 70 wpc ) and Ensemble Voiceflux cables. The speaker cables helped the bass, then bass took several more steps upward when I added Ensemble Powerflux AC cords to my Shanling CD-T100 and my Klyne SK-5A.
Yes, the 1.5s definitely have more bass. The Shearwaters have a bit more definition in the lower octaves, but the ProAcs are still accurate and very tuneful. While the Meadowlarks did a better job of disappearing, I preferred the ProAcs overall. The Shearwaters are quite often reputed to be easily driven...partially true. One can achieve very good sound on lower power, but they don't really come alive until you hit them with some juice...that carbon fiber woofer likes some power. The ProAcs are not perfect, but for tonality and musicality they win hands down IMHO. The 1.5's are much prettier, too...WAF.

Associated gear:
VTL TL-2.5 / VTL ST-150 (mostly in triode)
Theta Digital separates and Rega Planet 2000
Rega P25
JPS Super+ cabling