What about the Hales Transcendence 5's

I owned the Hales T5s for quite a while, years ago.

I thought they were spectacular.  They had among the most timbrally true sound of any speaker I'd heard.    They had a particularly grain-free smoothness in the mids/upper frequencies (like Joseph Audio speakers which also use the Seas midrange).    In my system they sounded rich and lush but extremely clear and extended, with a BIG sound and imaged and soundstaged like demons!   One of the best speakers I owned.

I only moved on from the Hales because...well...I'm an audiophile so that should explain part of it :-)

But more specifically, the main knock I had on my T5s is that they were a bit too smooth, almost to a fault.   That is, they seemed to slightly smooth away the textural presence, e.g. bows on strings etc, a bit too much.  And they lacked some sense of dynamics and image density/palpability.  (I actually talked with Paul Hales at the time just before Hales folded, and he acknowledge he had the same misgivings, which is why he had just then moved on to newer higher dynamic range designs).

I moved on to Thiels which had a lot of the tonal veracity, but had denser more palpable sound, and seemed more alive and dynamic.  (And of course I tried lots of other speakers).

But every speaker has it's pluses and minuses.   I found the pluses of the Hales so engaging that when it came to doing my home theater I sought out Hales speakers, so I have Hales Transcendence 1 monitors doing L/R duty, and the big Hales Transcendence Center Channel.   It's just gloriously smooth, rich and timbrally beautiful and I wouldn't trade them for anything else at this point.

(I actually bought one of the last existing pair of T1s from Paul Hales himself, who had a pair in his office).

You might want to read Fred Kaplan's review of the T5 in the Absolute Sound. I think it's issue 125. He found none of the problems listed above, and I know Fred, professionally speaking. He's an extremely perceptive reviewer. It seems unlikely that he would adopt the T5 as his reference if had any significant issues or "integration" problems.

If I recall, the T5 got a bad rap for poor integration between the woofer and the midrange. I heard it driven by a huge Theta amp and Naim CD. That aluminum midrange is very immediate, resolved and open; practically electrostatic. The speaker was a bit bass-shy in that room, and ultimately a little dry and clinical for my taste. A sonically excellent speaker, to be sure. I might have warmed them up with some tubes in the chain, perhaps.

The T5 is a very musical speaker. I use a pair in my office system. Tried them at home in my large room, but preferred the T-8s at home. I also have 5 T-3s that I use for surround sound. The T-5 goes deeper than the T-3. I compared the T-5s to Dunlavy 4A's and preferred the T-5. You've got a great little speaker!!!

I do remember,just from the review, they said the 5's weren't all that much better than the 3's. I have heard good things about the 8's.