No, I knew. I've lived with musicians for much of my adult life, I always had a piano in the house at the very least, I recorded live music and used it to judge speakers, so I knew what I was looking for. Perhaps someone else would have immediately identified the midrange hoot in the Legacy Focus that eventually annoyed me. It was subtle, but I think someone else could easily be more adept.
I see, thanks. So you consciously chose to live with the flaws. No speaker is perfect - they all have flaws - so we just need to choose the one of who's flaws we can live with. It's good that you chose what you did, though, because we learn through experience, and that's what happened to you. You probably said to yourself, "while this speaker does this and that really well, I cannot live with it falling short in other areas."
I didn't quite know what I was looking for when I jumped into this hobby 14 years ago, but I learned through experience and choices (some of them bad), and now I know exactly what I want and what to listen for. I suspect you'd easily be able to sit down in front of 5 different pairs of speakers (blind or sighted) and pick out the best ones (based on sound alone), even if all were considered good designs. Why? Because even good designs have subtleties and differences that make them stand apart or cause them to fall short. It may take some people more time than others to notice these nuances, but that's okay. It still shouldn't take more than a 30-day trial period if you're listening enough, though.
In my opinion the "pretty girl" or "honeymoon period" syndrome only happens to the inexperienced or those who don't yet know what they're looking for. Seriously, I
know the Salon2's are tops (objectively and because my ears say "WOW"), and I would flat out stop listening to other speakers if I owned them. Of course, I say that now...
Well, I do enjoy them, nearly everyday I'm in town. And they are the first speaker I've ever owned that I've seen my admiration for grow over time, rather than subside. But if you heard a full-range electrostatic - maybe you have - I think you would understand my curiosity. There's just something about the presentation that's more realistic. I've speculated previously that their dipole architecture and massive surface area may be more accurate reproducers of the original acoustic environment in one's listening room, and perhaps that's attracted me. Otherwise, yes I am enjoying the Revels. (If we're going to discuss electrostatics, let's take it to a dedicated thread.)
I have heard full range electrostatic speakers, and some of the things that they can do...well, it's almost indescribable other than to say "it sounds so real!" But then their trade-offs have to be weighed, and I simply cannot live with the ones that many electrostatic's suffer from. Or maybe I could if I had the "right" room/listening space.
I certainly see (hear) the appeal, though (I think the Magnepan 3.7's put the B&W 802D's to shame in most categories).
Okay...you're right - any more tangents should be taken to their own thread or PM. I do feel most of what we talked about is semi on-topic, though, seeing as NHTB is comparing two seemingly good speakers, and he may still listen to others before ultimately deciding.
I suspect that is your best bet, based on what others have posted about the Phil's performance.
I agree 100% with this. I'd would choose a speaker that is more accurate above 200Hz over one that has more heft and weight any day. Why? Because you can always cross over to a capable, well integrated subwoofer and get the best of both worlds.
Edit: if you wouldn't mind, please PM me regarding the Dunlavy V's that you heard. It is one speaker I have always wanted to hear but never have. I've seen it said that he was the greatest loudspeaker designer in the world, so I'd love to get the thoughts of someone who's heard Dunlavy's work but also other world class speakers (and owns the Salon2's). Thanks!
