Agree with Viridian and Al. Their views are more balanced. Too many variables in play.
I've often read that reviewers measure specs that are not relevant or important, and fail to measure specs that are. To a certain extent, at best, as Al said, specs may be useful to eliminate "bad choice" candidates, but not assure that a particular component will be a winner.
@Melbguy1 -- I've had my ears (pun) on the Magico S3s or S5s, for many of the reasons you just mentioned. And in time, I may wind up there. But right now, I'm obsessing over a type of distortion that many do not speak about or understand ... time coherence.
About 2 years ago, I've auditioned a pair of Vandies and IMO they did not do it for me. The response from some Vandy fans was that the dealer didn't know how to set them up. Or, the dealer used the wrong speaker cables. Or, my listening chair was in the wrong position. Or, the dealer used the wrong head vice. And so forth and so on.
Vandy buddies ... these explanations do not resonate (pun) with me.
Some time coherent speaker naysayers add that using 1st order x-overs requires the drivers to operate out of their "happy" zone. Or, the sloped baffles place a premium on proper placement and listening position. Or, the whole approach is at best a rough justice solution to a complicated problem.
So here is where I am holding. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water ... I am holding onto my speakers for a while longer. I am going to test the time coherence waters with a DEQX device.
Trying to set up an in-home audition next week or the week after. For those not familiar with DEQX products, take a look at the DEQX website. I do not expect that the DEQX time coherence and room EQ solution will be a panacea.
Actually, I'm not sure what to expect.
But I'll report back.
Cheers,
BIF