Magico Q7 . . . wow

Taking a closer look at the entire Q line, a few things become obvious.
A) They all use the same tweeter/midrange
B) All of the drivers come from the same family of design
C) All cabinets are of the same rigid aluminum construction
D) Crossover parts are all the same
E) Aside from the Q1, they are all four way designs

So the only differences will be the size of the mid-bass driver and the size of the pair of the woofers.

What this means, practically speaking, is that the entire Q line should sound the same with the exception of total linearity in the bass. Bigger drivers = more efficient coupling with the room they are in = greater dynamic linearity = the ability to play louder without any sense of strain.

I would be very doubtful that, for instance, the Q5 and Q7 sound much different given a sound level that didn't push the Q5 to it's limits. (assuming the same associated equipment and room size) If they did sound much different, I would be either very wary of their design or vary wary of the validity of the listener's abilities.

Also, in the endless arguments over the various big time speakers, the most fundamental differences are so often overlooked!
Magico=Carbon Fiber drivers
YG=Aluminum drivers
Wilson=some sort of ridgid phenolic
Evolution Acoustic=Ceramic

THIS singular point is going to be THE overriding quality that dictates their sound. Not so much cabinet construction and what not. (They are all sufficiently herculean in that regard.)
To me, the EA sound great but with an obvious ceramic quality. The YG can sound pretty decent, but with an obvious aluminum quality, and so on and so forth.
Nothing more than design choices. Nothing more than flavors.
So the arguments over which is higher "Fidelity" is pointless.
(though the EA does have arguments in this area, but for different reasons and ones that are masked by the ceramic colorations. different topic, different thread)

the Q7 have completely different drivers (magnet)than rest of the range. They sound similar to a Q5, but more dynamic.

I believe that defining a speaker by the drivers material used is a bit simplistic. The EA sound quite different from a pair of Marten, Kharma, or tidal... and they are all ceramic.

On ported vs. closed bass enclosure: I have both a pair of EA MM3 (for stereo) and Usher BE-20 (for home theater and multi channel). The MM3 measures in my room at 18Hz flat. I find the MM3 bass much more natural than the Usher. I listen mainly to Jazz, for that the MM3 is better than a Usher (but I prefer Usher for modern music). I find the Magico Q3 even more transparent than the EA MM3, but it lacks bass response of EA MM3. the Q7 s for me the perfect solution. I am waiting to do one listening session in good conditions before buying one.

"Big Maggie and ML CLX comes close except that they lack a bit of weight and growl that a good size grand piano possesses. "

This is one reason I went with OHM Walsh speakers from Magnepans and having auditioned both ML and Magnepan . The sound has similarities to electrostat or planars but the Walsh driver is dynamic. Pianos, drums, etc. sound more like real drums. Plus the single Walsh driver covers everything up to 7-8 khz or so no driver integration issues with dynamic woofers or subs. The top end uses a more traditional soft dome tweeter.

Oh whow i didnt know that!!

"the Q7 have completely different drivers (magnet)than rest of the range"
Highly, HIGHLY doubt it. Looking closely at them, I have no reason to believe this.
Perhaps you can try to explain the differences. But I believe there to be none of any significance.

"I believe that defining a speaker by the drivers material used is a bit simplistic"
Not as it pertains to this discussion. The EA sounds different from all the rest of the ceramic based speakers because it at least makes some attempt to preserve the time domain. (Ie. 1st order slopes, time alignment) THIS is the reason for sounding different from other ceramic speakers. But it does not eliminate the ceramic flavor of the EA.
I am quite experienced with all of these speakers. Of them, the EA is by far my favorite (because, considering the time domain, it is of significantly higher fidelity than the rest. This is indisputable.) But, try as I might, I can't quite get past the ceramic flavor that influences the sound.
The relative similarities of the type of things that MOST impact the sound of a speaker between the rest does, pretty much, boil down to driver material. Not exclusively, obviously, but is of very high significance.

The carbon fiber cones tend to impact the sound less than ceramic or aluminum, which is probably why I would gravitate towards Magico as a close second to EA.
However, for my expectations, neither are worth owning long term.