Magico Q7 . . . wow

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.

"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.

Prdprez, you write "I would gravitate towards Magico as a close second to EA. However, for my expectations, neither are worth owning long term".
I would be interested to hear from you what are your preference, and what type of music you listen to (if you listen mainly to modern music, I wouldn't be surprised you don't like them, but for acoustic jazz for example, I have difficulty to find better speakers, and I heard most of the top speakers on the market).
On difference on the Q7 drivers, I suggest you read the good description of the Q7 technology on soundstageglobal. You cannot get driver with a 10dB higher efficiency than the Q5 without significant changes of design (in particular on the magnet).
I don[t disagree that driver material are important, but i personally find that enclosure and filter design play a much more significant role. If you have a look at the first Magico Mini, the second magico mini, the M5 and the Q5, they have different technologies of driver, but there is a very clear family sound....