Magico Q7 . . . wow

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.

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....

I have to laugh about "how boring". They produced solo piano better than any other room. I think the MBLs would have edged out the Magicos in the same size room but then you would need a higher level Magico to properly compare. They really are good speakers.

Peter Breuninger, avshowrooms.com

>>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.

How about 94db efficiency vs. 86db?
You should read Magico marketing material. None of these drivers are the same. The fact that all their midranges are 6” does not mean that they are all the same. You will not be able to use any of the 3 7” bass drivers in the Q3, as a midwoofer for the Q1. Having said that, you will not mistake any of these models to anything but a Magico, but as you go up in the line you do get more of the their ‘virtues’, not just bass and dynamics. For example, the Q5 is more transparent then the Q3 and I am sure the Q7 is more transparent then the Q5.