Looking for the next level in imaging...

I would definitely try to audition the Larsen 9, which are said to be great and well below your budget. The MBLs are excellent, but in the lower end (below the 101) don't have deep bass. The Larsens excel at bass and life-like soundstage.

Larsen 9 review / AbSound

I misunderstood when I suggested the Larsen 9, because you’d mentioned the MBL’s. You’re looking for imaging, but those two are omnis. Sorry! I am intrigued by the Larsens (and MBLs, which I have heard) because they throw up a "wall of sound" that is more like live music but with less instrument and voice image specificity. Many of us, myself included, are conditioned by front-firing traditional speakers, though some would argue that the imaging and precise soundstaging they offer is an artifice, not realistic to live music. Of course, much recorded music, especially if recorded in the studio with many tracks combined at the soundboard and mixed for effect, is an artifice. Other than orchestral and chamber music, much of what I listen to probably wasn’t recorded live with all the musicians in studio together, playing as they would on stage in performance.

All that said, people who know and love the Larsens warn that the experience is quite different than front-firing speakers, and the AbSound review says that also. They have some advantages apparently, like being able to be placed up against the front wall without harming bass response, and are less affected by sidewall distance and room effects. 

I note that AbSound’s Jon Valin has as one of his reference speakers the top of the line MBLs with massive subwoofers. Big bucks!

"If it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room" — BINGO @bigtwin !

One of my big concerns in re: high-end audio and the recording arts, is that the VAST majority of people listen to music on crappy systems (Bluetooth speakers!), or with earbuds, or in the car, and have very low expectations and sophistication as to what well-recorded music can and should sound like. We with good systems are in the minority, and record companies probably don’t much care about our needs. Maybe.

Thankfully, those aren’t the driving factors in how music is engineered and recorded overall, or we purists would be listening to vastly inferior recordings and our good systems would be rendered impotent. We still have engineers, producers, artists, and masterers who strive to achieve the best reproduction possible within reason. Bless them. (Yes, direct-to-disc , reel to reel master tapes etc aren't common and are expensive). 

Speaking of the recording engineer's magic, this live album has long been one of my absolute favorites, both for the music and for the quality of the recording. Kavi Alexander of Water Lilly Acoustics is a recording master. A Meeting By The River won the 1994 Grammy Award for Best World Music Album and its success spurred engineer and Water Lily Acoustics head Kavichandran Alexander to record more collaborations. 

A Meeting By The River is universally praised for the authenticity and realism of its recording and its 2008 vinyl release is often cited as audiophile-quality reference material. The session was captured using two customised valve mics in a Blumlein-array arrangement (using Tim de Paravicini tube gear, IIRC) into a converted Studer two-track analog tape recorder and the louder you play it, the more every rattle and scrape of slide on fingerboard and every microtonal flurry draws you into its rarefied, spontaneous atmosphere.
A Meeting By the River review

Hi @mikelavigne

re: "but when it comes to musical connection, my highest priority is ’why’ and ’what’ the musician is doing, not ’where’ he is doing it. it’s the musical intent and musical energy, micro and macro dynamics, textures, rich tonality, and flow which is the priority."

You have surely gone to greater lengths for a longer time than probably anyone on A’gon to make your room and system as good as it can be. In your quest to achieve a balance of all the best of "why" and "what", is it possible to break down or quantify the importance of the different components and room design and tuning?

For example—and I am just throwing out numbers as examples—would it be 30% room design, acoustics and tuning (to get a holographic image); 40% speakers; and 30% front end? Is it possible to break it down? And to refine it even more, like ratios of importance for the front end (ie, amp, preamp, DAC, source)? If percentages are unrealistic, maybe a ranked priority order would work?

I have heard tell of very expensive systems that sounded mediocre relative to price, because of bad rooms, poor setup, and another big problem (I’m told)—poor synergy between components.

I’m sorry if the question isn’t well-stated or imprecise, but maybe you get my drift. THX

@mijostyn , points well taken. I was born in 1957, by the way! Got my first decent system (for me, as a teen) in HS (Bose 301s!), but had fallen in love with music reproduction long before then, lying on the living room floor listening to Dionne Warwick, The Association, and the Everly Brothers on my parents’ big console hi-fi.

I still have much to learn and do to optimize my system, but know that I probably don’t have the perseverance, talent, rigor, patience, and critical ear to do what @mikelavigne has done, and others too who have really refined systems. Even if I had the budget, I would need help. It is also interesting how subjective AND objective the pursuit can be, and how each person may have different priorities. Horses for courses. I could probably be really happy with a great, simple system consisting of a great pair of two-way monitors, a great integrated amp, and an excellent DAC and streamer (streaming or ripped CDs are my thing). I could also be very happy with a much larger, more complex and expensive system. I am a guy who can have fun driving a Miata or a Porsche 911 (which I may never own—woe is me). Cheers.

@mikelavigne ,

Thanks so much, re "here are those room tuning links to what i did back in 2015."