Magico V2 vs. Q1

>>Suggest you dig that out

Could not find the review anywhere. The C-1 always sounded pretty lean at shows (and the D-1 at the last CES). It is hardly a 5” in a pretty small box, and if it is indeed an 88db efficient, it will not go very low. It is physics after all.

>> 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.

Kiwi_1282001,
Finally found MC Raidho review at a local dealer. I am not sure how you arrived at some of your findings, but at least as far as FR and efficiency goes, I see a very different picture then you. The C-1 are only 85dB efficient. Not a big of a difference to the Q1 as you allude to (0.5dB). Their 6db down point is at 45Hz. The Q1 are 84.5dB efficient and are -6dB at 39Hz. In terms of efficiency, they are just about the same, were the Q does go lower. If we take 1KHz as a reference point, the C1 has about 10dB less output at 20Hz then the Q1 (in room). If we take 100Hz as a reference, then the C1 is almost 20dB (!!) down at 20Hz. The C1 FR responses from 48-30K is +3.5Hz, -5bd (!!), were the Q1 46-25K is only +/- 3dB.

The C1 are quite depressed between 1K-6K (-5dB) and almost 5dB up at 10K. (No wonder they sound “airy”). With about 4dB extra output at 100Hz, I can conclude that they are “voiced” more than they are linear. MC measurements of the C1 are not very impressive (Did I mentioned the weight, which is less than ½ of the Q1). In all fairness, they are also ½ the price. Not sure what is the motive to compare it to a speaker that is clearly in a different category on all counts. The C1 should be compared to the new Magico S1, I don’t think the results will be much different but at least they are comparable in price.