Devores and Omegas - input please

I've owned Devore speakers since 2009, most recently the O/93. I was hoping it would be my last speaker but for me there was something awry in the upper mids (presence region that prof mentioned above) that led me sell them. I loved this speaker in every other regard, and spent 5 months trying to figure this out. I even tried a different room with no change. 
I know several people that are bothered by this particular frequency and several that can't fathom what I'm talking about, regardless of components or placement. For those that hear it, volumes over around 80db become the threshold to turn the volume down. At first I attributed it to recordings, room, dac, cables, tried to EQ it with no success. Over time and speaking with people in the industry, I came to find that this is one of the only reasons people sell them. IMO these people are obviously the minority of listeners. It wasn't the tweeter, but the upper range of the 10 inch driver, or possible a resonance at that range, as some have stated to me.  
That said, I've never heard a speaker that has so many other strengths. Presence, bass, dynamics, all off the charts. It kind of ridiculous to follow that statement with- I just could enjoy them at anything but low volume levels. If that particular frequency didn't cause fatigue I would be done with my speaker search. I've spent some time with the O/96 but years ago and can't comment.        
  

@prof,
That was an excellent description of distinguishing speakers that fit the "neutral/accuracy " mode versus those that mimic the "natural/organic live like sounding" mode. I understand precisely what you mean. Yes indeed, tenor saxophone heard live is fat, warm and full in tone. I really dislike speakers that strip and dilute this real character/presentation  and referred to as accurate.
Charles

@bjesien
@prof

wondering if the 0/96 has the same resonant frequency mentioned by bj when he had the 0/93 -- same 10 in driver employed in both... seems like just in a bigger box used in 0/96 to gain a few more db of efficiency

i do like good spatial characterization/imaging in my sound, so i am also a bit worried about the ’wall of sound’ comments

i am using the spatial audio m3 sapphire open baffles now... 93 db efficiency with 2x 15 in bass drivers each side and rated 4 ohms, so not best suited to lower powered tube amps, but the enormous cone surface area moves air unlike any of my (many many) prior speakers...

I experience more wall of sound than spatial 3D image.  They did move lots of air. That’s not easy to find when combined with all the attributes mentioned by Prof.

charles,

Yes, I think that people who hear something like the Devore O series as colored or too rich, departing from "neutral" are generally comparing them to the sound of more "neutral" speakers, not necessarily to real sounds. So they know what their music, say a voice or a sax track, sounds like through a more neutral speaker, and if a speaker departs it is colored.

Whereas clearly I’m talking about what things sound like in real life to me.

I have owned, and still own, plenty of quite accurate speakers - until recently I had Waveform monitors (very accurate) and I own Thiel and Joseph Audio, both of which are more in the accuracy camp. I love their sound! And there are some things each does that captures aspects of real life sounds. The Joseph speakers; a super grain-free unmechanical sound, but generally thinner than life. The Thiels, very even top to bottom, richer than the Josephs, a density and palpability that is life like more than most speakers. But beat by the Josephs for lack of grain and timbrel beauty. The Spendors I have (little S3/5s) recreate the organic roundness, softness and body - the "gestalt" - of human voices better than maybe anything I’ve owned (Harbeth being the competitor). But are softer than life for other things. The Devores aren’t as grain-free as the Josephs, nor as focused, punchy and palpable as the Thiels, but they reproduce the sense of size and richness that gets closer to the real thing in many instances, to my ear.

If someone is in to pure accuracy and specs, that can make life a bit easier in a way - the goal isn’t "sounding real" per se but simply accurately reproducing an input signal, where you can look at the linearity of measurements for confidence, and then the chips just fall where they may in terms of how each track will sound. Quite a number of people get along happily that way.

But if you go the route of seeking some comparison to live sounds, while it can be very rewarding, it’s also of course always going to be about compromise. No speaker I’ve heard gets every aspect right, and depending on where one is in terms of experience, what one speaker gets right will turn your crank. Some people may have started with the boxless transparency and realism of quads and later realized they were missing the density and dynamics of real life sounds and then went on a trajectory that led them to horn speakers. Others may have started with horn speakers, and then maybe felt they could hear mechanical colorations that they later found absent in panel speakers, and went in the opposite direction. So two people may hear a speaker and seize on it’s different qualities. I may hear a horn speaker and immediately think it sounds more live; someone dedicated to electrostatics may immediately hear it as more boxy and artificial.