Used Magico V3 or Rockport Mira 2

Sibelius,
Are you saying the Magicos smoothed over the rough edges of a trumpet played at fortissimo levels or that other speakers often do that? What model of Magico did you hear?

Cmalak... I am not sure which model you have heard, but you clearly hearing something completely different then what I, and just about everyone else in the “establishment” is hearing. You are claiming a “lot of (dry) details”, yet Sibelius here just claimed it is too smooth and “pretty”. You claim “lacks of natural harmonic overtones in the low frequencies” where even MF, the bass freak that he is, admitted that they have the best resolving bass he ever heard. In theory, and in measurements, Magico bass alignment is more accurate and extended then ported design. Yes, it is not as efficient, but no one should argue that it is less accurate, and more extended(I am sure many that “trust” their ears will disagree, but you should Google the subject, keep your mind open and trust your ears less because they are lying to you all the time). That is in theory, but also how, I and many reviewers and music lovers around the world hear them. All the best to you as well and happy new year.

I've never found Magico to be analytical or dry. They don't have the dimension of a good Wilson or YG, but I like them better because I value tone and timbre over attack and decay.

I have a good friend that has a pair of M5's with nice Esoteric gear. I'm familiar with the V2 and V3 as well. I've heard similar priced Rockports at Goodwins. I prefer the Rockports. It's a tough call and your money so take the trip and listen to as many speakers as you can.

Peterayer:

The speaker I heard (sorry, don't remember which Magico model it was) did a lot of nice things but unamplified instrument timbre just seemed a bit off to me. Then again, I had the same issue with a bunch of multi-driver speakers I heard at the show. I found that I much preferred HE speakers with single or wide band drivers in that regard. Not to say that they are perfect - they have their own shortcomings. But I think they overall do a better job with portraying orchestral instrumental timbre (in the all imporant midrange - I'm not talking double bass or Organ here) and attack. A fortissimo trumpet is one example. I missed the piercing attack that assaults the ears when in a concert hall. Period instrument baroque music is another good example. Violins with gut strings have a very astringent tone to them when heard in person. In listening to the Magicos I felt that this aspect of the sound was much diminished.

Given the positive press I read on Magico's leading up to the show I had high expectations going in but in the end they were not my cup of tea.

I will say that it did appear that the majority of the people in the Magico room seemed to enjoy the speaker more than I did.

Overall, the show was a real ear opener for me. There were a lot of mega-buck speakers on display that just did not do it for me. There were only 3 or 4 (out of maybe 20 that I listened to) that I really liked.

I`ve heard the Magico Q5 at CES 2010 and the Q1 at RMAF this year. I feel the same as Cmalak and Sibelius, the speakers did`nt reproduce the tone,overtones, fullness and body of instruments. IMO they did`nt sound natural but have an artificial character.

I sure it comes down to what reference one uses, in my case it`s live jazz played in local clubs without amplification, Just musicians on stage with their saxaphones,trumpets, drum sets, acoustic bass and piano. There`s such a vibrant and fullness of tone when those instruments are heard in person. Beautiful texture,timbre and warmth. It`s quite emotionally involving. The Magigo seems to strip this quality and thus to me sounds thin,leaner and washed out compared to reality.

I realize it`s all just diffenent ears and preferences.
J. Valin and others really love the Magico presentation. it just is`nt for me.
Regards,