I'm not sure is disclosed the far superior speaker/floor interface of the MK-II --the only oversight I stated in my original reply.

Finally, did you upgrade to the MK-II (I believe originally you purchased --or were considering-- the review pair) ?

Personally, at $30-K+ (original MK-1's) I, you, we should expect near perfection --certainly with something as routine (and not at all that difficult) as driver integration and a linear, accurate frequency response. There is no reason at all that a loudspeaker manufacturer cannot produce such a sought after (desirable and accurate) transducer. If it can be done at well under $10-K (KEF Reference -1's --and many others, likely the floor-standing Aerial 7-T's would also qualify), it MUST BE expected in this price class. In fact, that leads to adding both the KEF REF-3's and/or 5's (at 1/3 and 1/2 the price of the Magico S-5 MK-II).

The engineering precision, parts and build quality is certainly reflected in Magico's lineage, construction precision/details, product weight and price. Yet, (in my books) all for not IF NOT engineered into a complete, thorough and clearly superior product than the products referenced above.

I realize Magico is a small and young company, but it appears they stretch their engineering time to thinly between models. The realization comes from the fact the MK-II S-5 borrows from the less expensive S-3 model (mid-range enclosure) for example.

Similarly, if more time was devoted to the original S-5, the disappointing floor base coupling could have been averted --and clearly "corrected " in the MK-II. Additionally, according to yourself, improvements in driver transitioning was also "corrected" something that should be expected in the original.

This by no means is a "shot" at Magico. But rather simply, at this price level, these "details" become more and more relevant, important and (should be) expected --and delivered.
Finally, that the MK-II designation comes so soon after the original also suggests a too-quick-to-launch offering.

Summarizing, your review on the original S-5 was fine work. I look forward to reading this one again, a bit more thoroughly.

Let us know (me anyway) if the S-5 remains in your possession.

peter jasz