Thx for the responses, I guess the Treo is preferred by this group😉. Last time I stereo shopped in ’88 my final three choices were the KEF 104/2s, Vandersteen I think 3a but might have been the 2c, and the Dahlquist. I remember the unmatched clarity of the 3a’s and great imaging, the wonderfully strong full sound of the KEF’s and their great imaging, and the Dahlquist being similar to the Vandersteen. I ended up choosing the 104/2’s mostly because of the 92db sensitivity, I liked (and still like to some degree) listing to music very loud. The KEFs were a great choice, so happy with them for 25 years. They still sound so good that I have auditioned some pretty accomplished speakers and they do not sound any better than my old KEF’s. I also chose the Luxman R115 which I loved as well, then in the early 2000’s upgraded to Bryston 4B-ST and a BP-16. I got the Bryston for more power to listen louder, but always thought they sounded dull compared to my Luxman. A bit of regret on getting Bryston.
I have learned to pay attention to phase shift/time alignment stuff. My first introduction to that was the D’aApolito design. That is one reason I like the KEF’s, their D’Apolito uses physical placement with x-over design to improve issues at the tweeter/mid crossover. I have always been partial to non-electronic solutions, seems the less electronics the better. Similarly learned to liked first order x-overs due to reduced phase shift. At the time I did not know Vandersteen used first order x-overs, but my ears did!
I got a chance to listen to the Wilson SabrinaX’s and they did not move me. So I am going with Vandersteen unheard, mostly based on my audition 25 years ago and listening to Mr. Vandersteen explain his approach to speaker design. Tho the love shown here certainly did not hurt. Thx again.