jafant,
Understandable. We all have our own criteria. I personally like a near field, or close to near field listening set up because I love being enveloped in the sound, I get the most realistic sound staging, and to my ears usually the most natural, relaxed and realistic timbral qualities to voices and instruments (since near field reduces the influence of the room).
But more distant set ups do tend to sound more dynamic and lifelike in that way, so I can see the appeal in how you prefer to listen.
jonandfamily,
It's been a long time since I heard the 3.6s - or the CS6 for that matter - but what I remember is the 3.6s having just a bit more "shine" to the upper frequencies that could be a bit detached to piercing, whereas the CS6 had a smoother, more sophisticated sound. No doubt the coaxial design had something to do with it. But I also remember some mild issues with the CS6, a bit of hollowness that could creep in in the high midrange/low tweeter frequencies, especially dependant upon seating height/position. It could add a sort of thinning, cardboard/papery sound to instruments when they travelled in to that range (e.g. high register woodwinds). But it wasn't frequent or bad enough to be a bummer. The 3.7s have none of that, I was happy to find.
