Meadowlar Osprey...How does it sound???


Any owners of the Ospreys out there? I'd like to get feedback to determine if I should upgrade from my current Shearwaters to the Osprey...

Is it worth the upgrade is the bottom line...
How much better is the Ospreys vs Shearwaters...

Feedback is greatly appreciative...
Thanks in advance.
gotoma8
Well said Sedona....
Well, I've heard plenty of speakers, from Exemplars to Thiels, to Von Schweikert VR4s, to Dun Leavy, to Innersound, Proacs, to Silverline Audios, to Vandersteens, to B&Ws, to Alons and many more...
Each time I hear them they all have their own distinct characteristics and its all up to you tastes, first in music and what works for your space. I just happened to like Meadowlark and wanted to know if the upgrade to the new ospreys would be feasible in $$$.
Thanks again for all the comments...


I purchased a pair of Ospreys from another audiogon member who had them for a couple of months. I was not overly impressed at first and after spending so much money I thought perhaps that I had made a mistake.
After a few weeks we started noticing big differences in the smoothness and with extended bass response. Now after 2 months they have kept improving and sound smoother.. Reciently I have added a new/better cd player that has really opened up the soundstage and imaging capabilities of the Ospreys. Clarity and imaging is outstanding.
I am very pleased with them, they have slowed my three year "speaker mania hunt obsession" to almost a stand still.

In a nutshell, very detailed, excellent imaging, dynamic, acurate bass with no boom. A very musical speaker.

I have to agree with Sedona ( thanks again! ) on one point, there are better speakers to invest in if you listen to mainly rock, lets face it when you really want to rock you need Loud! At higher levels ( higher than I would care to listen to) the Ospreys can sound what I would call "strained".
Thanks
Shoe
Zaikesman, I think on some level you might be right about the dynamic limitations of 1st order crossovers, especially compared to something like the Wilsons. On the other hand the 2.2's are hardly in the same price range of the Wilsons. Comparing apple dollars to apple dollars and here's the caveat, with appropriate power, some 1st orders speakers like 5, 6 and 7 series Thiels as well as 4A, 5 and 6 series Dunlavy's can do a very credible job.
I think I was misundertaken...Sedona, you didn't have to 'defend' yourself; I wasn't trying to attack you. Maybe *I* didn't understand *you* correctly, but it sounded to me like you had something specific in mind, still first-order. I thought you might have a reason for continuing to recommend first-order designs, maybe even something the Meadowlark did well. I did not glean that you didn't prefer first-order designs at all. I've got no problem with that - in fact it makes sense given the sonic priorities I asked you about.

I myself have never been able to see a positive way to determine whether or not the qualities I like about the Thiel sound are really directly traceable to first-order, time-and-phase-aligned design, at least in part. I believe Thiel contends they have made some of their designs in non-time-aligned versions for test purposes, and that the difference is crucial, but then they would say that. It's a very good marketing story regardless, and as you know more than one manufacturer has successfully used it, and it may indeed be the truth to some degree, even to a large degree. But the fact will always remain that there are many good-sounding speakers, of both box and planar varieties, that manage their accomplishments while ignoring this principle entirely, so there are no absolute franchises on correct speaker design. As ever, it's a matter of wisely juggling trade-offs.

Unsound: As you say, I was talking about the dynamic challenges inherent in first-order design generally, but was not trying to put my 2.2's up against speakers costing 5 times as much. As for Wilsons, I am sure that a large part of their overall brand superiority in the area of high-level dynamics has as much to do with their uniquely rigid and non-resonant cabinet construction as anything else (as does their higher than average pricing).
Zaikesman, we are in complete agreement. That adjacent drivers carry more burden suggests a compromise in dynamics may very well be "the nature of the beast". The Wilson's very high sensitivty doesn't hurt either.