Shahinian Obelisk vs VandersteenTreo

I was expecting that "neutral, sweet, tubey" sound that everybody raves about. Fidelity to music. Something like that.

What I got was... like I covered the speakers with a blanket. Powerful, loud, yes, but ... mushy. No air , no clarity, no dimension. The music was in the speakers, it did not come alive.
Calypso Minor from Abdullah Ibragim’s Sotho Blue, or, better, Someday Soon Sweet Samba from Capetown Revisited - all... boring.
Maybe it will get better with time.

Sorry, I did not clarify. Treos are good speakers. No problem with their extension; I find the LF is just not articulate. The quatros are better. I have heard the sub combo. It is not for me, so no argument there. The later quatros solve the midrange dip problem. Don’t have to believe me, stereophile measured it, although I think the reviewer underplayed the degree. I have a pair of B&Ws with very similar problem.

@ja_zz 
I think some of your disappointment might be with the Shahinian's. 
Another might be the preamp section of the integrated amp.
Though without being there, it is hard to give a good reason.
Unless, you want to fly me to Russia...;)
Bob

Bob,
I'll think about it;)
Meanwhile, I am coming over to the US like... tomorrow :))

Da
your password is secure !!!
hope you have a fantastic vacation here
i did a bit of an AM email exchange with RV
the measured response was a room floor bounce / wall coupling issue that JA did measure but that you do not see in the anechoic chamber plots, completely fixining it for real rooms = box like sound that Vandersteen not known for.
the Quattro is designed for closer placement to back wall for ( my words) WAF
you might chat with RV about changes thru the production run prior to the CT
i did not ask about that
i am a fan with 7 MK2 in my home and his amps on the way so I am bissed
2nd home will get Quattro CT
some day