The closest approach...really

you guys are terrible...and fun!

seriously, i think short-term listening sessions are quasi pointless. i am pretty sure that a serious brain scientist will be able to offer a scientific explanation for this, but i find myself liking more things than i should after short listening sessions. i begin to have a feel for the real essence of any component only after weeks of serious listening. i believe that these short listening sessions are biased by many things that have little to do with audio (e.g. you read a review that says amplifier x has great imaging, you listen to it, and your brain starts to image like crazy). it would be interesting to see if there are ways to unbias yourself when you do quick tests of this sort.

GG,

If your original question was:

Can the Quad/Gradient combo be beaten?

I'd say, depends what's importaant to you.

Visit one of those crushingly loud MBL demos the company hosts. You may well walk out saying that there's no way in hell you'd trade your combo straight up for a 101 - and I'd probably agree with you. OTOH, you will know what the MBL does better - not that you'd necerssarily care.

Marty

Trelja and Tvad, Thanks for the heads-up on Marilyn. "Yowie" is right, and might I suggest...Zounds!

While apparently Mrtennis does not need any defenders, a couple of thoughts come to mind which apply to all of us in these audio forums.

#1, our hearing biological hearing systems may be similar, but not the same. Consider age, gender, health, etc., let alone ear shape, brain receptors, etc. and we have an infinate variety of aural perception.

#2, our experiences, training, and interests are not the same. With such different backgrounds, we bring an extensive variety of foundation information (and therefore preferences) to the listening experience.

So Mrtennis may be sensitive to sonic details that some others, if not most, may not be so sensitive to. This does not make one person right and another wrong. Ever wonder how some folks prefer only planar speakers while others demand sealed dynamic drivers? Or vented/ported systems? Or horns? If one design approach offered the TRUE reproduction of live music, wouldn't we all be listening to it in our homes?

Therefore Ggavetti, some may agree with you that you found the closest approach, but most others (based on percentage of design type sold) may have other answers.

Pryso, That's a very interesting point, but I am not sure I fully agree. That is, you are certainly right that different human brains, different backgrounds, different professions, et cetera et cetera make for different tastes. But if there is a real thing, and the notion of closest is referred to that real thing, how can it be that there isn't an objective way to define what "closest" mean?
In other words, one may have a taste for a bombastic bass, or for an incredibly acute tweeter, or for microscopic detail...and that is all good and respectable...but that ain't the real thing...in my humble opinion.