Magico V2 vs. Q1

Colloms Review of the Q1 certainly makes for interesting reading. There seems to be little evidence of acoustic controls (bass traps / absorption / diffusion etc) in Colloms listening room and I can't help but feel this would influence the observations made. Colloms subjective view of 84dB sensitivity (very low) and bass extension of 46Hz (-3dB) would be very disappointing for some readers. IF true this would mean other products notably the Raidho C-1.1 / D-1 would better the Q1 for both efficiency and bass extension. I don't think Magico would be happy with the review. Clearly the product is not right for Colloms open plan and highly reflective room and I dare say this has led to the somewhat negative conclusion.

Colloms wrote a review on the Raidho C-1.0 sometime back. In that review he also discussed efficiency, noise and frequency response. Suggest you dig that out.

Hi Mariv26,

I think you have missed my point, which was I wasn't happy with the Q1 review, either in terms of MC's listening environment or some of the measurements made. I was being a bit sarcastic about the Magico / Raidho comparison. Clearly the larger driver on the Q1 should go lower in bass - but that was not MC's "in room" finding was it?

According to the "Lab Report" in Vol 5/No 2 the old Raidho C-1.0 (the 1.1 BTW goes lower) had in room “extension to 29Hz at moderate power”. MC cites 30Hz for the Q1 which looks odd given the bigger bass driver and the fact that Magico rate the Q1 at 32Hz -3dB (presumably measured anechoically). My point if you carefully re-read my earlier comment is the room is influencing the observations made and a quick look at the waterfall display shows some of the issues. I am not surprised that the HiFi critic review is not posted on Magico’s site. The measured results are quite far from the manufacturers specification.