Elderion,
IF you didn't have 300 to 400 hours on the 220s you havn't heard them at their best. Out of the box I prefered them to the 82s. After breakin they opened up even more. Imaging range and depth all better than the 82s, simply more dynamic. The 82s sound wild wooly and untamed in comparison IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I liked the 82s, I just like the 220s better. I had a pair of 82s borrowed from a friend who also has 80s, 1.4s and 5.4s for an extended period(he did not miss the 82s while I had them). The 220s are excellent in the mids and clean in the highs. They may roll off a bit early in the highs but not terribly. Bass is clearly superior, tight and controlled, not the least murkey with my setup. Diana Krall or Patricia Barber sound scary "natural" through the 220s. I chose not to leave my venerable Sound Dynamics 300ti pair for the 82s but did for the 220s. To each his own.
IF you didn't have 300 to 400 hours on the 220s you havn't heard them at their best. Out of the box I prefered them to the 82s. After breakin they opened up even more. Imaging range and depth all better than the 82s, simply more dynamic. The 82s sound wild wooly and untamed in comparison IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I liked the 82s, I just like the 220s better. I had a pair of 82s borrowed from a friend who also has 80s, 1.4s and 5.4s for an extended period(he did not miss the 82s while I had them). The 220s are excellent in the mids and clean in the highs. They may roll off a bit early in the highs but not terribly. Bass is clearly superior, tight and controlled, not the least murkey with my setup. Diana Krall or Patricia Barber sound scary "natural" through the 220s. I chose not to leave my venerable Sound Dynamics 300ti pair for the 82s but did for the 220s. To each his own.