q3 magico

As an owner of the Tidal Piano Cera, I have no problem with the reviewer comparing my $23,000 retail loudspeaker to the $39,000 Magico.

I take that as a compliment to the Tidals! I also think that the Tidal might work better than the Q3 in small rooms (particularly when considering the variogain room tuning feature) but for ultimate performance the Q3 is world class at its price point.

Clavil, I only attempted to point out the unfairness in comparing one design that retails for 65% more, and where one is less likely to get a discount. If I came out with a new speaker product, I would want a reviewer to compare its performance to more expensive designs, not lower cost product(s). What is the sense in that? The Contriva Diacera is a more expensive than the Q3 and that comparison makes more sense to Magico IMO. Are you suggesting that the Contriva Diacera and Piano Cera have the same issues?

James63, that does make sense. Nonetheless, it also makes sense for the reviewer to seek out price peers or more expensive products with which to compare/contrast, particularly when one is so effusive in his praise.

Bvidman, I had forgotten that the Piano Cera review had used the (variotuning) bass boost setting as opposed to the flat/neutral setting which users in the small to medium sized rooms will prefer. Unlike the Contriva series, the Piano series does not have a provision for port plugging. BTW, don't want to see this thread turned into a Tidal vs Magico discussion. No doubt that both brands are world class.....

Ramzika, I actually expect any manufacturer's website to be complimentary to one's own products. Sometimes bordering on a bit of hyperbole. Check out Wilson's advertisements in Stereophileas an example. I don't fault them one bit (whether Magico, Tidal, Wilson and YG). I mean if a manufacturer doesn't advocate for its own products either directly on its own website or through paid advertising, who will? FWIW in the case of Tidal, I don't recall ever seeing a print ad for Tidal.