All New Magico A5 Loudspeakers // Biggest "BANG" For Your BUCK On The Market ?!

Discussants, may I ask if anyone has compared the Magico's, the Rockport Avior 11's, the B&W 802d3's, and Revel studio 11 in particular consideration of features contributing to the cost of each.  Specifically:  1. Do the Magico's and Rockports employ costlier drivers and crossovers, and if so does this make a sonic difference ?  2.  Does the 802d3's' enclosure technology....tubed tweeter, 'turbine head' midrange, semi-ovate base enclosure....allow cabinet inert-ness and other advantage equivalent to or superior to that inherent in the Magico aluminum design or the ultra-thick MDF, backward-raked Rockport design ?  3. Does the technological prowess and volume-related production efficiency putatively attributed to B&W and Revel translate into either the B&W 802d3 or Revel 'Studio 11' offering sonic quality equivalent to the just-cited Magico and Rockport models ?
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Kenjit and DHT4.me...and others.
Your comments are of great interest.
One implication is that driver cost does contribute significantly to high end speaker cost....I wonder again if the drivers used by Magico and Rockport are costlier and better than those used by Revel and B&W.
Another is that woofer enclosure inertness is very important....recall comments elsewhere that the B&W's ultra-rigid semi-ovate design is 'wasted' in comparison to standard rectilinear (or near so) configuration.
And I again ask if the greater R&D and volume-related production efficiency sometimes attributed to Revel and B&W (neither 'boutique manufacturers as perhaps viewed by high end and ? lower end users) translates into better value (approximately 50% lower cost of full range models)....or equivalent performance....in comparison to the Magico and Rockport offerings.

Was unaware of A5
Thanks

May I ask again for B&W 802d3 - Magico comparisons.
Note that the B&W's have diamond tweeters, the Magico a5 series does not, the B&W's use extensively researched midrange cones with variable thickness, and the Magico's A5 a 'new' carbon-type midrange cone.  

Does B&W intentionally favor midrange bloom over midrange detail ?