Quad 57 stacked v Wilson watt puppy 6/7

mrtennis,
just a quick, relatively unimportant comment, but trying to qualify the above statement with "it's all subjective" does not change the objectivistic tone and (at least implied) content of the claims that follow. this has to do with what the word "preferable" means. if it "all" really is subjective, then it simply is not possible that "no cone speaker is preferable," except to some individual(s) based on their own subjective preferences (the word prefer implies subjectivity.) do you mean something like "in my opinion no cone speakers are preferable...." or perhaps more simply (and directly), "I prefer the stacked quad 57s to cone speakers"? this would be consistent with the statement that "it's all subjective." It is a matter of semantics and sneaking in objectivistic statements under cover of a subjectivistic one. while language is ambiguous enough that your post can technically be read to mean that these statements are subjective and merely reflect your own preferences, the actual wording belies a strong belief that you think your preference is grounded in an actual fact that exist beyond that preference (in the external world), namely, that the quads are objectively more accurate than any cone speaker. in turn this implies that the "preferable-ness" of the quads really isn't subjective at all but an objective reality, which contradicts the normal uses of the word "preferable" (i.e., when referring to an objective fact, this word in redundant and thus unnecessary).

in other words, one can't have it both ways, either one believes that the 57 is objectively more accurate, "period," or one believes that the 57s are only one's own perference, however strong that preference may be, i.e., that the strength of that personal preference cannot convert it to or even bring it into proximity with "objective truth" (assuming such a thing can itself be objectively real or true without becoming little more than a tautology).

that said, and more importantly, though, i am jealous as i feel sure that if i ever heard the stacked quads my brain would melt in musical ecstacy! :)

mrtennis, my sincere apologies of trying to pick your post apart in order to make a largely irrelevant point. as you so rightly intimated, the relations between perception and fact is at best something for philosophy not audio sites.... not that my opinion should really matter given my lack og audiophile experience, but my non-electrostatic panels (apogee mini grands) were the next best speakers to any i heard except the five minutes i spent in the mid-90s in baltimore with sound lab a-1s (though god knows i can't say that was based on my appreciation on differences with cones in terms of accuracy) and like i said before i would not be surprised if stacked quads sent me over the edge... i only own cones (single drivers) because i am poor, even though i do appreciate them.....when i bought the mini grands the dealer had some wilson maxx's in the same room and the wilsons had a bigger more dynamic sound but the humble apogees seemed to be more controlled and stable in terms of frequency response (especially ignoring the questioniable sub frequencies) and overall presentation, dynamics,and soundstage...anyway much respect for your preferences/insights, when it comes to communicating the experience of high end, i have little to offer