Cconfused...

Ishka, please audition your favorite contra-base/cello recordings through MG 37is.  My take is that their line source drivers produce more realistic long string sound than do most cones.

My ears tell me I am hearing nuanced detail I can’t hear from cones.  My imagination tells me that linear drivers produce sound waves more like long strings do.  My brain tells me that low mass membranes are so fast they can reveal audible vibratory energy pulses that cannot be replicated by cones. I’m thinking that low mass beryllium tweeters probably benefit detail in the high end for the same reason.

Please don’t give more weight than due to the E’s comments.  I find that a good blast of high THC yerba improves SQ far more than even the most expensive doped rocks, wood shims or exotic conductors.  I guess it must be my doped internal wiring that is the key!?

It’s an unfortunate fact that no audio system--regardless of size & price--can even come close to the power & scope of live music (or live in studio music). So those of use who love audio gear as a means of enjoying music are left with choices re which subset of musical characteristics we prioritize. For example, it’s rather easy to find gear that emphasizes transients, dynamics, deep bass & high treble to give an illusion of realism, accuracy, resolution--all the usual descriptives. But someone else may value gear that emphasizes soundstage, subtle ambient/acoustic cues, roundness of tone/timbre, and natural rendition of space.

I’m in the latter camp; my preferences were formed by years of attendance at live music of all kinds, including large-scale symphonic, choral, and operatic works (plus countless rock, jazz, and world music performances). It took years of wasted time & money to find equipment that suited my tastes. In the big 2-channel system, that meant Vandersteen speakers (whose 6dB/octave crossovers trade a bit of dynamic strength for musical coherence and a relaxed quality that appeals to me); and tube amplification, for that 3D rendition of notes that sounds like reality to me.

I’m now deep into desktop audio, including high-end headphones--and all the same comments apply. It’s easy to find gear that throws out razor-sharp transients and ear-busting treble. Me being me, I go in the other direction.

The point really is: we’re all just selecting & assembling our preferred subset of musical qualities, working with the best that audio equipment can do to imitate music. There's really no right or wrong in these preferences...

@deskWell articulated.

The best sounding electric bass ever, IMHO, was Phil Lesh, with each of his 4 (sometimes 5) string pickups channeled through a dedicated channel  of McIntosh amps, with multiple sets of JBL speakers for each string and pickup.  Woofer movement from one pickup channel did not affect another channel, avoiding all intermodulation distortion.  From 32 to 48 300 watt solid state and 350 watt tube amps were used for the complete 11 channel sound system, depending on both venue, and our failing memories.  Check it out  by googling Dead Wall of Sound, then click images. Interestingly, two of the designers were Owlsey Stanley, of LSD fame, and John Curl of Alembic and Mark Levinson fame.  (The JC in ML model numbers.)

I till have very fond memories of my 1970s Phase Linear powered stacked (Wood, yes they sounded better) Advent system. I even stacked some B&W's for a decade, until I got 803's.