Speaker Dilemma--A Good One to Have but Confused

MA is the most neutral, but also the most laid-back. Technologically, it is nearly perfect. At realistic listening levels it will play all types of music and movies without preference. 

Focals will be better at lower volumes. They will sparkle. 

Try to listen for extended periods, at the volumes that you normally listen at.  Also, compare for sweet spot and off-axis listening. 

Lastly, budget your room acoustics. Contact GIK, they have the best advice and highest value materials. They will make your room friendly to a lot wider range of speakers

Also I would base my decision on what your other two rooms have. If I were to have multiple rooms I would use something a little different flavour in each room.

All great advice. 

I forgot abut Spendor.  The D7 is well revered. 

I owned a pair of MA 20 years ago. I loved them and their customer service was perfect. 

I have never heard Focal floorstanders. I know they are loved by many. 

Great tip tip in thinking about differentiation between my rooms. That’s a smart idea. 

Knowing what type of music you prefer really doesn’t tell us much. What aspects of sound reproduction (i.e. Tonality, detail, soundstaging, etc.) and speaker characteristics are most important to you? Impossible to make an informed recommendation without this info.

Soix, 

That's a fair point.  But it is, however, hard to answer. 

Maybe I can give you my history--in the form of speakers--and it may shed light.  I really can't talk in audiophile terms that well. 

When I was young, I had inherited a pair of my dad's Wharfedales from the late 60s.  They did nothing really well but nothing terribly wrong either.  They just let you enjoy music but with no special insight.  [Recently I bought a pair of Wharfedale Dentons to get back to that place.  They are wonderful, yet that's another story. ]

Then I bought a pair of Cerwin Vegas.  My Sony receiver would smoke and overload--it couldn't drive them.  I loved how the CVs boogied and played loud, with utter bombast.  But as I got into jazz they really didn't have any meaningful midrange and the treble was glaring. 

Next, I bought a pair of Monitor Audio bookshelf speakers, which were near top of the line 20 years ago.  They were shiny in sound but had an accuracy and warmth that I really liked.  They were my first glimpse into real hifi. 

After that, I owned Totem Arros.  I loved the holographic dreaminess of them.  They actually didn't image that well; I wouldn't notice though because they were so breathy and magical. 


Then I bought PSB Imagine T2s.  These are wonderful in their own right.  They need decent front end and some space in the room.  Once set up right they showed me another level altogether.  I couldn't stop listening to music.  The T2s are balanced top to bottom, showing off no particular area more than another in the sound spectrum.  They can really rock when you want to.  They can also play jazz and vocals so well I can feel the performance. 

In sonic terms, I like things sounding balanced.  I don't like missing out on any specific ingredient--soundstage, imaging, midrange, treble, bass, transients, etc.  I need the speaker to give a little into each area we hear so that I can appreciate it.  Think of it like saying, I like 4 course meals.  I don't say that I like appetizers more than dessert or main more than salad--I want them all and to have at least some of the features that make each one great.  All that stuff together adds up to a meal.   

Now I certainly can tell when one steak is way better than another--just as I can tell one speaker images better than another.  I just don't know that I want one thing that much more than another....I'd rather be able to have some characteristics of each feature to help me enjoy the entire thing more...sort of a gestalt view. 

Does that make sense?  Things I don't like are fatigue, harsh highs, bloated or non-musical bass, or one area of the spectrum overshadowing another too much.