Has anyone heard the Magico Mini?

I just heard the Magico's at a local dealer driven by Thor monoblocks and was quite underwhelmed considering the price tag. I would not even think of trading up my Guarneri's for Mini's. Also, when you see the Magico in person, it looks "plump" and somehow unattractive. Certainly poses no cosmetic competition to Sonus Faber. The Mini's sound good compared to many speakers, just not good enough to make me anxious to write that check for $22K.

Pgulrich,
That was the impression that I had also when I compared the Guarneri's to the Mini's.
The Mini's are good but IMHO the G's are better.
As far as cosmetics go, I guess that is a personal choice, but for me also the G's are in a different league.

I owned the Guarneri's for ~ 5 years, and traded them for Kharma 3.2 CRMs. I also had the opportunity to hear the Magico Mini's for several hours perfectly set up with absolutely top notch cables and electronics in a small room. I do love the G's and was very happy with their sound for a long time. Depending on what you listen to, the G's can be the perfect speaker. They excel at jazz, vocals, chamber music, and so on...but they dont do justice to big bands, symphonic orchestras, and rock. Even using a pair of Tact subwoofers and cutting the G's off at 200 Hz, they could still choke when fed too much "stuff" (Ellington, Basie, Mahler, etc). The Kharma's, with the same associated equipment, seem to be better at imaging/soundstaging than the G's, are great at vocal/acoustic music (though not as seductive/lush as the G's), and they can handle the bigger stuff pretty well. The soundstage on big band and orchestral music is definitely better - wider, taller , deeper , and more realistic than the G's (though aals still nowhere ear close to the real thing!) The Mini's are different from the G's and the Kharmas. To my ears, they do the macro and micro dynamics thing better than either the G's or the K's and are more accurate/linear. I liked the, a lot, but then again they were paired with $ 20 K worth of subwoofers, and 2-3 X times that in cables alone in the system I heard...so hard to say. Based on personal experience, I would pick the Kharma's over the original G's ..and would love to take the Mini's home for a spin in my system to see how they fare vs the Kharma's. I think the Mini's woiud be better IF you have a absolutely the best components/cables feeding them,and a great pair of subs to hand the bottom octave, but the Kharma's might be easier to love in a more "reasonable" system (though they need subs as well)

Alexc, I would concur with everything you say, but, in a small/smaller room, I think the G's are a little more involving than the Kharma's. In a larger room, I am sure the G's cannot move enough air to present orchestral music or big band as well. I noticed in my room that the Kharma's had a slight hardness to the treble compared to the G's and actually the image focus was less well portrayed/defined. True, I listen to a lot of jazz and blues and no real rock or big band. On rock or more power music, I think you have to have speakers that can move a good amount of air, which frankly IMHO requires large drivers; and really the bigger the better.
The G's are small monitors in a way, so they are superb on voice and jazz and small ensembles. Very hard to beat in this area in a small/smaller room( I actually have not heard their better in this regard, including the Kharma's and the Mini's).

Iv'e only heard the Magicos' at CES/THESHOW when used to demonstrate mid to lower-high priced equiptment. The speakers always seemed to me to be overly analytical and were not a good match for lesser equiptment. I should probably say my personal tastes do not favor the Wilson's either. Loved the Kharma's but lower bass always seemed a bit thin. For lusher more romantic sound the Zingali's are good while still offering decent resolution at a little less money. Have not heard the new Sonus Faber. Only other speaker that comes to mind at this lofty price range is Shahinian which Iv'e only briefly heard. Mike