Sad- I think we come out the same way, I would just express it differently. I find that there is a 'natural' loudness level for each recording (at least recordings that aren't overly compressed throughout), where, because of the recording, the system and room, everything just 'gels.' At that point, the system can still handle dynamic swings effortlessly, and as you said, you don't need to crank up the system to get full measure of what is on the recording.
The other benefit is that I can get that 'open' quality of electostats that I grew to love over the decades, but can achieve something approximating a full-bandwidth system without having a GIANT speaker, like the big Soundlab.
And since the horns are tres efficient, I can get away with a very musical SET amp to power the mids and tweets.
So, on balance, I'm far less focused on 'audiophile' attributes, like soundstage and image, because the horn based system has an immediacy that goes beyond creating a 'faux' image; it sounds very 'vivid' and 'in the room' (which may turn into 'forward' and harsh, unless addressed by the associated equipment). Perhaps this is a band-aid to an inherent flaw in mine, but after many, many years of 'audiophilia,' I am listening to the music, not the system. (Not suggesting that the illusion will 'fool' you all the time, but on great recordings it is spectacular, and even on less well recorded material, I can enjoy what's there to hear). I do find that the horns are more ruthless in exposing the gimmicks of the recording- something that might be spectacular sounding on my old system because of detail, imagery, or the like, is revealed for what it is. When I compare different pressings/masterings of the same recording, the differences are not subtle.
