This is audiophile neurosis. You can never have it all youhave to pick your 'poison': tube vs solid state, digital vs analog, dynamic vs electostat etc, etc
Blondes or brunettes? There is no right answer. I had Martin Logan CLS II with a sub and when it was time to replace decided to shop the dynamics due to my large room size. I was disappointed with what I heard because all the dynamics sounded like- well speakers. I bought a pair of Prodigy's and have been very happy because I value realism over other things like bass slam (it has enough for my needs). What I give up in pinpoint imaging doesn't bother me as much as what I get in the open, trasparent sound. I'm not interested in debating or converting anyone because you either like blondes or brunettes and you just have to decide for yourself.
The only way is to have two systems - I have the ML Odysseys which sound so good biamped with the EAR 534 for tops and the Mcintosh 352 low end. My other system is the Eggleston Andras which can really blow the sound out. If not two than something always seems missing. One alternative to sort of bridge the gap are good ribbon speakers like the VMPS FF1's which a friend has - makes me want three systems. Happy listening!
An electrostatic loudspeaker is more accurate. In fact the Quad 63 is the only speaekr which can pass a swuare wave. I have heard the orchestra members turning the pages in a 3 dimensional space. However if a rcording was made in a studio not in a "real" space and monitord on dynamic drivers with electronic amplification then dynamic driver will be the best tool to repeoduce that kind of music. I blew up my ESL57s while listening( quite drunk) to a Rolling Stones broadcast concert. Wrong tools for the job.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
