Soundstage and explosive dynamics?

 I'm guessing you've never even listened to Tools recorded work. Dynamically compressed doesn't at all describe it.

More assumption from you, what a surprise. I have "Opiate" and went back and revisited it after this comment. I immediately followed it up with Dream Theater's "Awake". If that is your frame of reference for dynamics and recording quality, your frame of reference sucks. My comment about listening to dynamically compressed rock was based on that recording and after listening to it again, I stand by that comment. 

I kinda doubt the OP is still paying attention. His aspirations for a system aren't much different than my own

Who are you, Carnac the magnificent?

 but has turned this thread into a soap box for those to extoll the virtue of their own opinions.

Clearly, self awareness is not a strong suit for you. You do it on every thread you participate in.

 

I'd have ignored this posting half way through page 1 had I originated it.

Too bad you didn't originate this posting, it would have saved reading a bunch of whining from someone that clearly does not know what he/she does not know. 

Low level listening dynamics are clearly a virtue of high efficiency, large displacement speakers (not always horn systems). At normal listening levels (70-85 db), the gap is very narrow for most really good speakers, irrespective of design philosophy. When you start getting above 90 db, many, many home speakers begin compressing. My current Meadowlark Shearwater Hot Rods, though ony 88 db efficient, are very credible dynamically up to that point. Comparing them to my previous Vapor Audio Arcus was enlightening. The compression is subtle at first and becomes stark as the volume goes up from there. Why did I get rid of the Arcus? for my taste, they require a subwoofer and I could never get the blend perfect. 90 plus percent of the time it was seamless, but when it wasn't, I hated it. If you listen at all above the levels mentioned above, you owe it to yourself to listen to one of the high efficiency systems mentioned in comparison. You will be surprised how early many systems begin compressing and understand what that really sounds like. It truly is an eye/ear opener. 

Actually, Tool’s recorded works are relatively uncompressed dynamic range wise, see link below for the list of Tool recordings including reissues and their relative dynamic ranges, from the Official Dynamic Range Database. Green is good, red is bad.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Tool&album=

Geoff, thanks for the link, very interesting. The Tool disc I have is on the low end of the medium scale, and is audible. Clearly many of their albums are better, and I will check out some of them. It also shows that the upper range dynamics of the DT album is better. What is really interesting is how differently the same album can rank, depending on the release.

Kosst.  Actually it's not my cult,  my speakers are not all out horn's. Only the tweeter is a horn, the mid and bass are regular dynamic cones.  
 But I have owned quite a few speakers many mid efficiency like Vander Steen, reference 3A, Dynaco, Tannoy's, Polk SDA's
 Ive owned low efficiency panels such as the Apogee divas with high-powered solid-state 
 And  I have owned hybrid horns but where the horn covers most of the frequency spectrum down to about 200 Hz. 
 Trouble is I had to blend a woofer and a sub to those and felt like I couldn't get it 100% so I am moving away from them.    I just can't stand to listen to you postulate about something you obviously know absolutely nothing about. My pet peeve is going on these forums and seeing all this misinformation by people who speak with total authority. 
 Just admit you're wrong and that you've had a very little or perhaps no experience with horns.