Can you tell me why I didn't like the Reference 3a MM's?

I have good source.
Metrum Onyx with a Kitsune tuned Singxer DDC
Audioquest speaker cables - the $18ft ones
Cardas and Audioquest interconnects.
MPD on a linux Raspberry Pi
E.A.T C-Major turntable with a Black Cube phono amp.
Aric Audio Unlimited preamp
Pass XA25 amp

I had a Odyssey Khartoga. Good amp, but I felt it was my weak spot. So I got the Pass.

I really need to stick with Bookshelf, as my "listening room" is my garage and the speakers are about a foot off the ceiling and wall for protection.

What do I want? Magic! I want it all! I do have a subwoofer, B&W to compensate for low end. I want good midrange, imaging, tonal and clarity. I want to go "Wow, that sounds really good." at times. Which I have now, until I turn the volume down. But as I get older, my wife and I both tend to listen with the volume lower. Sure, I still crank it up every now and then, but that is getting further and further apart. So I am hoping/thinking that a more efficient speaker would just plain sound better at a lower volume.

Most reviews of the B&W agree, they are really good with the volume up. Maybe less so at quieter levels.

Budget - up to $4k maybe, if everyone is raving about the speakers.

I am a bit surprised at your reaction to the Ref 3 speakers, as my experience with them is quite different than yours.  I ran a pair of de Capo i's for several years with a 35 W tube integrated (Primaluna Dialogue One), and I loved the sound.  They were very articulate IME, somewhat reminding me of electrostatics with their jump factor and delineation of musical lines (attributed to there being no crossover element on the woofer/midrange driver).  Regarding volume, one downside of the amp/speaker pairing in my system and room was that I couldn't get the volume knob up past ~10 o'clock, because things just got too loud.  This made it a challenge to get volume level just right, since the pot wasn't as finely sensitive at its lower end.

I actually tried a pair of B&W 805's in the same system/room and decideldly did not like them.  They just didn't have the life that the Ref 3's brought.  Maybe this is all about amp/speaker interaction?  Or room acoustics and positioning?

This too is priceless. What you "see at shows" is like what you see at a cheap carnival with a funny house full of mirrors. You implicitly feel the same way but condescendingly conclude that those who like what they hear at a show must be intellectually and audiologically impaired.

You missed the meaning of my last two sentences, and you have to be a very insecure person to come to that conclusion.

does again show that you can train your ear/brain mechanism to ignore some signals and be sensitive to others. I see it all the time at shows.

It is clear to me that we train ourselves in how we choose to listen to music and audio equipment. If you hear cables and amps more than you do speakers, that’s you, and it’s personal. The ear-brain mechanism is plastic and flexible enough to allow for this, I think. There are often rooms I go to where other listeners and I hear entirely different things. No where do I ascribe superiority to either approach. Buy what you like.

I will say that from what I’ve read, the average listener finds frequency response the single most important attribute. If that’s true, then for the majority the room and speaker are going to matter most. If that isn’t you, then that isn’t you.

Mr. Squires-you seem to do nothing on this Board but pontificate as though you alone have all the answers.

The mark of a true gentleman is calling them Mr. right before you say they are bloviating. That’s a class act I aspire to reach.

Be best,

Erik

Erik, it would have been easy, perhaps, for you to interpret my comments to mean that in my opinion source and electronics have a greater influence on sound character than loudspeakers, but I never said that. I only said they are ultimately more important to SQ. Put differently, I happen to agree that choice of loudspeaker has the largest effect on the character of the sound, just not the quality of the sound. 
Angelica Huston's nose might be the largest contributor to her facial character but it sure as hell does not have the largest effect on her perception as a talented actor. So to use that most unexpected analogy-I am sure-I would rather have an Angelica Huston with her mind and personality and a different nose in my cast of actors were I to be a movie director than Angelica Huston's nose on someone else who lacked her talent. Perhaps this registers with you. Perhaps not. I don't care a wit.