Musician vs. audiophile

This is all wonderfully academic for sure, but i have heard Wilson speakers sound sublime and quite wonderful at times, and dreadful
at other times, depending more on EXTERNAL FACTORS than an internal flaw in the speakers themselves.  As for musicians having a different sense of what sounds more like the real thing or not, I cannot agree less.  If they just don't care due to their stubborness and/or narrow point of view, that's separate from knowing good and well what sounds natural and what doesn't.  The 1st time i heard a good pair of acoustic suspension speakers back at the ripe old age of 9 or 10, i knew that i was hearing bass that went deeper, far less harmonic distortion, and highs that were more open and airy.  Was it Majico good or B&W good?  We can argue over THAT, but let's not kid ourselves over the basics.  The poster & wife simply have issues with the end results they are getting when they sit down to listen to music, and a trustworthy audio shop (or a capable friend) could help them out to get better sound regardless.  And furthermore, they have speakers that cost an arm and a leg to start with, along with other esoteric components.

@bdp24 "James Boyk, Pianist In Residence at the California Institute of Technology (where he teaches), is a performing musician, recording engineer at his label Performance Recordings, equipment reviewer, and long-time audiophile. In one talk he gave, he described how the timbre and tonality of his piano changes as a long-held notes/chord fades to silence, the relative strengths of the fundamentals and all their overtones changing as the notes fade. When he evaluates equipment, James listens for the ability of the product under test to reproduce that changing timbre he knows is contained in his recordings of he playing his piano. Wow! Last I heard, his monitor and pleasure listening system consisted a pair of the original Quad ESL’s, tube electronics, and a Linn Sondek table."

That's pretty much where I ended up...a tube amplifier driving a pair of Quad ESL57s.  Like James Boyk, timbre / tonality can make it or break it for me.  I try listen to sounds I'm completely familiar with, and a component that alters that loses me.  Don't want to risk kicking any sacred cows, but some of the most highly esteemed components sound quite wrong.  I will say that the Quads do (far) better at that more than any other loudspeaker I've come across

Just switch out the speakers.  The magic may not be from the Mac.  I used to sell audio and was free to audition speakers at home when the store was closed.  Same preamp and amp,,,  but each speaker sounded entirely different.  The Martin Logan's may be the magic there.  But,  then again. It could be your room as well.  Try the speakers alone first would be my suggestion.   And, yes.  I am a musician.  ;)

If you do not like the sound of McIntosh and Martin Logan then you are in the minority.  I loved them when hearing a demo.  As a musician your wife has tuned ears.  I am the same.  Not only the music but the accuracy of instruments sounding as live.  Violin cat gut vibrating cello string.  Can you hear the resonation of the wood chaber of the instrument.  Other people listen differently.  I thought a pair of B & W 683s I heard at best buy were harsh in the highs and had no dynamics in the bass.  Could be the recording?  The demo room?  Many people like them but I did not.  So I fall in your catagoy there.

trelja, I couldn’t agree more.  Love the ESL57’s for their amazing midrange purity.  I don’t own Quads, but that level of midrange and high frequency correctness is the reason that I put up with my Stax ESL F-81’s maddening low end and SPL limitations; amazingly realistic timbre which rivals the Quads, imo.  Driven by tube mono’s in many respects they make some of the most realistic sounds I’ve ever heard from a sound system.