Quad 21L vs. 22L2 Sonic differences?

I have always been interested in these speakers but have been unable to hear them in person . Have read on several reviews that the 22L is rather bright and can therefore be fatiguing during extended listening.Have others found this to be true??

Rrm - in my listening tests I never found the 22L2's to be bright. Music was Monolake (electronic), Heartless Bastards (garage rock), Black Keys, Dire Straits and of course Bowie. Some Bowie tracks tend to ring on my home systems, but they both feature metal dome tweeters, the 22L2's have soft dome tweeters - this could have caused some slight reduction in harshness.
One of the testing rooms was at a dealer here in Denver. He had systems on three walls, and shelving on the fourth, but the 22L2's got the best electronics (high end Vincent and Parasound Halo seperates) and some acoustical foam treatment behind the gear and the listener. The other testing room was in a hotel at RMAF, the 22L2's were on a side wall in an alternate system. They still sounded great. They didn't come close to the electrostats on the other wall, tho!
Yeah I've read that 'tech radar' review myself, and I cannot understand how they can give the B&W 683 a 5 star rating, and give the quads only 4. That is NOT the case. And I am not saying that because I'm a B&W hater, My HT system is B&W 6 series and I love it. The Quads are just better. The only speakers that would beat them might be the Focal 836V, but I haven't auditioned those yet. KEF's new Q line is also on my list...
Lots of dealers run speakers costing less than $2000 with home theater receivers. This is NOT the best way to audition speakers for a 2-channel music system. I was lucky to hear the Quads on some really nice 2-channel gear.
Regarding bright speakers - this is why I bought a pre-amp with tone controls - if it gets harsh I tone it back a little. I'm not a purist. I'm into the music!

I owned a pair of 22L2's for about a year or so. Had them paired with a few different amps, first a musical fidelity a308i integrated, then a sunfire multi-channel, then a musical fidelity A5 and then finally a Rogue Audio Stereo 90 tube amp. General concensus through the whole trial run was they're detailed and can be a bit bright/unforgiving with a resolving digital front end. I wouldn't categorize their response as flat. They have a mid band dip from what I've read online, which may/may not have contributed to the brightness/lack of midrange.

That said, they're a sub $1k (used) pair of speakers so you get what you get. They have a great finish to them and are honestly very nice for what they are. I upgraded to a pair of speakers costing 4x the price, so a comparison between the two isn't fair. With the right gear/setup and to the right individual, I could see where the 22L2's could be fantastic.

I'd be interested to hear what other A'gon'rs think would best the Quads in their used price range (sub-$1000). My experience on my home systems is pretty limited (monitor audio and B&W), and I have only auditioned 2 other pairs of floor standers to the same extent as the Quads. What other 2.5 way floor standers in this used price range could give the Quads some competition?

Sorry, as I chimed in already, but if you're running solid state, and for the money, the quads are hard to beat under $1k. Vandersteen keeps coming up often in comparison but I'm not sure they can hold up in the lower registers compared to the 22L2's.

You might want to save up a little more and consider the Devore Gibbons. If you're considering used prices, they're reasonable. Very nice speaker, very efficient with tube gear if that's your amp choice and they're a step up from the quads all the way around aside from low end slam.