Laid back, or in-your-face?


I was doing some serious listening (there was no laughing involved) last night and I was a little surprised by how laid back my Krell/Kharma/Purist system was. I'm don't think any of these componants have a reputation for being laid back, but they are laid back!

Is your system similar in that respect or is it more of an in-your-face sounding system.

And then, which do you prefer?
nrchy
My system can be laid back or forward (I'm referring to the forward plane of the soundstage) depending on the source. I have a laidback CDP for orchestral music and a more forward DAC for vocal, small groups, solo instruments, etc. I like the latter because it really brings the players into the room further and makes them sound a bit more like they might if they were live. You really can't do much for orchestral in that regard so I just go for the hugh sound stage effect. My turntable set up is on the laid back side as well - I no longer have room for two tables, so I'm stuck.
I've always considered "laid back" to mean mellow, relaxed or less detailed and "forward" to mean just the opposite, but maybe I've been wrong in my assumption. Going by my definitions of "laid back" or "forward", I consider my system to be forward. At low to moderate volumes it provides nice detail and full body with a wide soundstage, and I like it. Upon cranking the volume to LOUD levels, the system starts to become fatiguing within a short time. I've begun to recognize the value of a more "laid back" system, but is it possible to have the best attributes of both without compromise? That's the question...and the ultimate Quest it seems to me.
Tvad, Perhaps at "LOUD" you are simply overdriving your room. Not difficult to do in a small to medium sized room.
Newbee, that's a definite possibility! :-) Are the candle holders supposed to dance across the table like that?