Looking for the next level in imaging...

@jhnnrrs  Something else we have in common.  Love of ESLs.  I've owned Martin logan in the past.  Kept them for 20 years.  Now running a set of SoundLab Majestic 745s.  Coming back to my main point, a speaker can't produce anything that is not embedded in the recording.  The engineer crowds everything into the center, no speaker can magically spread the soundstage out.  Likewise with depth of field.  If it's not on the recording, it's not in your listening room.  That's not to say some systems aren't a little better than others at reproducing soundstage, I'm simply saying that any exception that new speakers are the answer to creating it, is pure folly.  IMHO.  Cheers.

My stereo system has great imaging. How great, you ask?

Well, one time I spilled my drink and I thought would get a cleaning bill from one of the performers.

Ba Da Bump.

But seriously folks...

Try playing Alice Cooper’s, "Blue Turk". It has a large, deep and spacey soundstage with instruments all around the stage front to back. Plus the guitar at the end goes progressively lower typically transitioning from the midrange to the bass driver.  See how well your speakers integrate that.  

And then play, "School’s Out" just because they played that song on the radio every spring through the 70’s.

I’ve been yapping about angle of dispersion; initial reflections; alternate toe-in for single or two listeners; and importantly for home theater: wide dispersion.

Just created this virtual system to illustrate my beliefs/advice based on many years

Toe-In Alternates: Stereo and Video

btw, viewing anybody’s system, open 1st image: top right corner, ’toggle full screen’ gets rid of the ads and shows image captions, and use side arrows for a slide show.

zuesman

mihorn, Unfortunately this is not the cleanest most natural sounding system in the world, sorry to burst your bubble but there's a much better systems out there.

It is possible that my system is not the cleanest and the most natural sound system in the world. There can be many better sounding systems which I have heard yet.

Please kindly let me know what and where is that clean and natural sound system. Alex/WTA

I run a BSG qol Signal Completion Stage processor which takes my system "to the next level" in imaging. My Thiel CS6 speakers image very well but the qol gives it added depth and focus. I would recommend trying this before buying new gear. TAS and Stereophile reviewed this piece and both reviewers liked it. The audiophiles who have heard my system have had a very strong favorable reaction. One was nearly incredulous and asked, "How do you get so much depth?" A BSG qol comes up for sale ocassionally but you have to watch for it. They usually go for around $1k (they were $4k when new). I bought an extra one in case this one fails.

Another option is the Carver C9. I have one of these also and it works reasonably well but the BSG is better. They sell for cheap so it's not much of a risk to try it. I'm going to sell mine but I haven't gotten around to it.

I haven't heard a BACCH but it seems like it does something similar to the Carver C9. I'm looking forward to hearing this when I have an opportunity.

I've been to three audio shows and I have heard maybe 3 or 4 systems that could match my system in imaging. The MBL 101E's ($80k) were one example. Another was a system with Von Schweikert Ultra 11's ($325k) and a third was with YG Sonja 3.3 ($140k). My point here is that I'm skeptical that you are going to get world class imaging with the budget you propose but if you go with conventional cone speakers you may like the imaging effect better than your ML's. I haven't heard the Ethos but other ML speakers I've heard are no slouches in the imaging department but they have a different character than typical box speakers that's a matter of personal taste. I don't know how well a signal processor will work on an electrostatic speaker but it wouldn't cost too much to find out.