GMA Callisto VS. Merlin TSM

What? Why do you say that about me Bombaywalla? I was merely offering up another way to say what songwriter is saying, and what I think Bobby is saying, in response to Minbean's position.

Ooops, Drubin!! Sorry! looks like I'm to be blamed for mis-construing your comments! LOL!

>> I find this issue of making all of one's recordings
>> sound good very interesting.
to me, this read like a sceptic's comment!

>> It is something I look for in components, but probably
>> would not were I a reviewer or designer.
I was iffy on interpretting this one too!
if the component makes all my music sound good for the correct reasons, then, as a reviewer/designer, I'd seek such a product.

I can see that. But I've read a lot of reviews in which the reviewer says something like, "as glorious as this component sounds on great recordings like the pablum in my music collection, it will also let you hear every wart, zit, and hair out of place on less-than-perfect recordings." And we've been fed that line for decades and I think that implicit in it is the premise that this is the price one must pay for having great gear. (And conversely, buy something euphonic if you want to listed to old Beatles records.) My old Quad 57's, as musical as they were, were very very fussy about recordings and very revealing of upstream changes (also, I was younger when I had them). Ditto the Thiels I owned recently. But not so much for my GMAs, Harbeths, and ProAcs. If I were a reviewer, I might opt for that greater transparency to what is upstream. As a music lover, I think not. As an audiophile and music lover, I am perpetually conflicted.

Jim2
Again, comments I make get twisted and blown out of proportion. I did not say the GMA speakers make all recordings sound good. I said they make them more enjoyable and more listenable. Again they do this by not adding additional phase distortions to already distorted recordings. If you can't understand how this would make a poor recording more enjoyable, i'm sorry.