Devore 093 compared to o96

the guy I bought my o93’s from said he thought the o96 was 10 percent better than the o93. That’s his experience. He also said the bass was more pronounced as well as the tone sounded more real.

That too is a very valid summation. Art Dudley and Tom Gillette (aka Sam Telling) seemed to prefer the O/93's. Besides the slight discontinuity/wrinkle in the midrange, the O/93's have a tendency to sound wide, high, but flat (lack of depth) that the O/93's don't have (there is depth of field to the O/96's). 

I have reached the age and point in life where I am done chasing for something better. At some point for any given person there really is no better-just different. I love the O/93's. I bought a pair of Spendor D7.2's brand new from Galen Carol about two years after buying the O/93's and regret that purchase. They do little wrong but just don't make me smile. I also have a pair of original B&W 805 Matrix that bought new way back in early oughts and I had modified with better crossover caps and internal wiring by John of Van L Speakerworks in Chicago and I really need to pull them out and give them a turn. Imho, there is something magical about those speakers that only got worse and not better in subsequent iterations. 

I’m giving consideration to DeVore speakers so appreciating comments here. It led me to the Prof’s long post and the Stereophile reviews..

It seems listening distance can be critical with both the O/93 and O/96. Perhaps that is the problem Herb found since his room is quite small and I believe he listens at a short distance.

For me, my room and budget would guide me to the O/93.

I have owned a bunch of different speakers, the tone of a cymbal or vocals is just spot on for what I find to be real sounding. Devore O93 does it

none of the other speakers did that.

I do believe you have to have synergy and with the Thoress amps and preamp, well they play very well together.

I have the luxury to pull my speakers up to 7 feet into the room so a lot of room to adjust for best placement.

thanks again

I currently own 96 and my friend owns 93. I have compared these two on other occasions as well. Believe it or not, I actually prefer 93 sound. 96, in hifi terms def do sound better(sound stage, bass, dynamics, treble extension) but 96 has its cons compare to 93. 96 at times can be too much in your face. Where as 93 sounds much more relaxed and balanced. 93 is better for long and comfortable listening session. 96 image bigger than the 93. 96 sounds almost like a proper horn speaker with dynamics on steroids. Its very exciting sound. maybe too exciting for my taste. I had a hard time finding right gears to match with 96 to tame this overwhelming dynamics. I have used 845 tube amps in the past with the 96. First impression was amazing, no doubt about it. Sounded like watching a huge fire work going off the sky. But it was too much in the end. Where as when I heard the 845 tube with the o/93, the balance was just right. It was not fatiguing at all whereas 96 with 845 was fatiguing after 30 min of listening. I currently use Supratek Pre with Firstwatt, Accuphase power amps and 6l6 tube integrated. They all sound dark. and this had to be done to somewhat tame o/96 overwhelming liveliness. Sources are soft sounding r2r DACs and soft sounding cartridge from zyx. Cables are warm sounding Cardas to again, tame the fatiguing upper midrange. 93 has def more choice of gears and cables for me because it is more forgiving speaker and I can enjoy it with variety of amps and sources.