I agree in part with Phasecorrect. I spent about 3 hours with the Swifts and Kestrel Hotrods with a variety of music, both excellent and not so good recordings. I do have to say both speakers are fairly forgiving (unlike the Thiel 1.5s, which were sufficiently revealing to render most of my collection unlistenable). The Swifts are excellent above 80hz - I was very taken in by the presentation of female vocals, acoustic instruments and wind instruments by the Swifts, which I found to be rich and involving, though male vocals and rock were excellent as well. However, despite the stated frequency extension down to 35hz, I found the Swifts to be completely empty in the mid-to-low bass (admittedly, the pair I listened to were about 4 feet from the rear wall but I found this placement necessary to bring out the soundstage and dynamics the Swifts have frequently been complemented on). The Kestrels, though not extending as far down as larger speakers, do offer a far more complete musical picture, at the expense of some detail and richness in the midrange. I cannot say whether this is an actual difference in the sonic signatures of the Kestrel v Swift, or simply a byproduct of the Kestrel's wider dynamic range, which conceivably could have shifted the acoustic focus towards the middle band. Perhaps the Swift's limited range contributed to Phasecorrect's impression of hollowness? I do find the Swifts an excellent speaker if they suit your music collection. I dropped them from my list, substituted the Kestrels, and the search continues.
Associated equipment:
Cary 303/200 CD (and Arcam CD72T, briefly)
Musical Fidelity A3.2 Integrated
Associated equipment:
Cary 303/200 CD (and Arcam CD72T, briefly)
Musical Fidelity A3.2 Integrated