What's next for the ultimate sound quality?


The question may be naive, but I'm not sure what's next to try in the quest for the ultimate sound. I owned the entry level magnepans mmg (didn't like them much for anything but jazz), monitor audio S6 (good all around, imho, but nothing spectacular except for the cheap price tag). Lately I built speakers myself that should supposedly rival the best in the world (ZRT 2.5 from Zaph Audio with Scanspeak drivers)

(design):
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZRT.html

actual speakers:
http://picasaweb.google.com/grybkin/ZRTSpeakers

The question is what's next? These speakers use one of the best drivers in the world and the best I've heard to date with excellent bass and accurate sound, but soundstage and imaging could be improved (magnepans are better). Also, the sound is a little thin. Am I asking too much, though, from 2 wooden boxes with paper diaphragms in the middle? The speakers are built precisely up to spec and I'm pretty sure that's the way they should sound.

Have I reached the limit where the speakers should be left alone and improving other components can make better returns; e.g, room acoustics and/or amplifier not to mention using quality recordings?

P.S. The receiver I'm currently using is Panasonic SA57 connected to a computer via digital COAX cable and JULI@ sound card. Despite the cheap price, this receiver is great, imho, and sounds better than my NAD 754 (probably because Panasonic is on the bright side and the speakers are warm, so it pairs with them better).

Thanks!
Gleb.
asdf777
i would consider a tube amp, maybe a nice little integrated. tubes have a nice way of fleshing out the sound and it may add a nice element to your perception of the speakers as thin. you can get nice amps under a 1k and even under 500$.
Interesting. Tube amp? Never even considered them... To be honest, I thought tube amps were kind of in line with power conditioners and gold cables (i.e., look cool and audiophile, but not really add anything besides design value :) Can they really beat modern all digital receivers? It would be interesting to try, though.

Does anybody know of an audio show in the Chicago area where companies bring hi end equipment? It would be a great experience to attend one of those to at least look at what's out there.
probably due to silk/paper drivers vs metal ones in MAs

Yes that is probably why your speakers sound good and "thin". Paper and fabric drivers tend to be much more internally damped compared to metal drivers and therefore you tend to get a waterfall with less resonances. Do not conufuse warm, nasal or etched sound with better - although it can seem that way initially (so does a compressed CD on a car radio). Perceptively, internally damped drivers make for a very clean sound - in a tight, low Q design (25 Hz tuning option) then you will get a punchy detailed sound and really extract the benefit of these drivers (a higher port tuning will sound impressive but boomy and sluggish).
There are many tube amps out there that will do just fine against your Panasonic. In fact, if you got sold on that one because it is "all digital" I'm afraid you've been had. It sounds like you have not had the opportunity to experiment with many different amplifiers. The Krell I spoke of was not a reciever, although they made one. It is an integrated amplifier.

The speakers you built are nice speakers. My initial hunch (now after reading all the other comments) is that you need to work on amplification, placement in room, and room treatments.

Regarding thin sounding, you can't blame that on all paper cones. I would disagree that this is why they sound thin. At least the woofer is used in many other high end audio speakers that are not thought of as "thin"
Shadorne, you got it! The sound is indeed clean, detailed and punchy and slightly damped.

Given my ideal sound description (a wall of clean and powerful sound), I've got clean and powerful, but the "wall" is missing.

Is tube amp the right answer? There seem to be a lot of DIY designs for tube amps. Or should the room acoustics be dealt with first? Thanks!