Magico V2 vs. Q1

The dealer in my country would not permit in-house demo...

People who write reviews tend to say along the lines that "given the physical size" the bass is tremendous... I am sure that's the case but it is such a big caveat. I listen to classical 99% of the time - mainly piano and orchestral. I dont need strong and powerful bass but it's important to portray that "weight" in orchestral music - i didnt get that via the duette...

I am using Jeff Rowland 625 - it's working well with the V2.

just to clarify, i was refering to reviewers in magazine - i read a few which says that the speaker produces the best bass among speakers of similar sizes...

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.

>> 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.

How do you know that? Have they ever been, subjectively, measured? I am trying to find some "real" data on these, so far not much success. Please point us in the right direction, Thanks.

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.