It's interesting reading about a speaker that, as of yet, has been sampled only by the company's principals and (maybe) several outside listeners whose opinion they care about.
Magico has big cojones coming out with this model just one year after their M5. If you compare the two, the Q5 involves replacing one of the two 6" drivers with a new 9" midbass unit, and upgrading the tweeter, along with their stated refinement (it is not clear whether they are referring to acoustic or crossover) of the two 9" woofers. And a new braced aluminum frame that overall is more dense than the M5, built on their own CNC machines. Technogeeks will gladly replace Miss July's poster for the new Q5 pictures (I already have).
But how will it sound?
As a disclosure, I bought the V2 several months ago after deciding for myself that overall they were the best speaker for me and my family under $20K. We are very happy with the choice, and I must admit that having a very good dealer who is a true gentleman paved the way for my purchase. For me, the hype concerning Magico caused me to be more cautious and deliberate in my decision, to ensure that I was making a good one.
It's fascinating watching everyone (including myself) trying to attach objective means of measurement (value, construction techniques, raw material cost, how "true" the intent of the designer is, how "honest" is their ad campaign, etc.) to what in the end is a very subjective and personal choice, regarding not only the speaker's performance but also the outlook toward audio itself. I sometimes try to talk to my non-audiophile wife in these terms, but like the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words," it's best to put on a record or CD to make your case.
Perhaps some people might be swayed by arguments pro or con, but in the end, if enough people are convinced to part with their $$$ for this or any other product, the company will succeed and make a profit.
In the end, the market decides. It will not matter whether or not it is a mediocre or great product, or if it "worthy" or "unworthy" of the success or failure it attains. And the market's choice may or may not make us happy. For some, there is no need to justify their choices; for others, a complete and thorough accounting is necessary for them to be true to themselves.
I for one would like "good" companies lead by admirable staff that make genuinely decent products to succeed. But there I go again with all the subjective verbiage.
Suppose the principal of a company is a real a**hole, but they make a great and reliable product - would you buy it? How about if he/she is just a great human being, but their product sucks - how about then? Suppose you lust after the Aston Martin Rapide, but they reject your argument that it really shouldn't be that more expensive than an equally-equipped Jaguar - does that make them a baaaaad company? Everyone has heard the story of someone who thinks that Bang and Olufsen is the pinnacle of High-End (I thought so in 1982 ... for shame), and that buying anything more expensive should have their head examined. And so on...
You like it, you might buy it. You don't like it, you most likely will not buy it.
The bottom line is that the Q5 is $54K. It is that price whether or not the M5 exists. It likely cost less than $54K to build. There was some design work necessary, which took some time, and which is worth some money as well. There is no monopoly on the ability to design, prototype, craft, or sell speakers of similar construction, so anyone has the ability to compete for sales in this arena.
We vote with our wallets and purses, pure and simple. I could have made this argument with one word - Walmart.
