I fell in love with the swoopy lines of the main concert hall in the 3XN submission when I first saw it here. This, the fact it was respectful of the existing classical facade and the variety in the decor and intimacy of the three concert halls won it over for me.
The Henning Larsen gimmick of lighting up the three knobby blocks of projecting on them was just that, a gimmick and unimpressive. If they had wanted to create an outside viewing space they could have done that to the rear of the building but they didn't underlining the gimmicky nature of the thing. The three, ugly, knobby-looking block visible over the existing classical facade were totally unsympathetic, badly placed and out of scale. THose kobby bits looked like something that the people I consider to be scale-less architectural terrorists, OMA, would have done.
The Henning Larsen seamless video presentation with mood muzak looked very slick, but I preferred the more architecturally revealing presentation by 3XN. Having gone mad with the first two thirds of the video leading into the seamless presentation of the foyer, Henning Larsen seemed to jhave been left running out of time and/or money to complete it and had to make do with still shots of the proposed development itself - I was less than impressed. 3XN, on the other hand, took you through all of the spaces, allowing you to view them as architectural forms modulating light and space, before offering fully rendered views of selected vistas.
The 3XN presentation suggested to me that they were presenting fully, for both for professional designers and the public, and they concentrated on selling the scheme on its native strengths, not gimmicks. This, taken together with the respectful and limited palette of forms, the majestic conception of the main hall and the intimacy of the recital hall balancing perfectly against the main classical hall, won me over. I'm not saying someone couldn't do this better, but of these two, 3XN got my vote, and for and above reasons.