Stillpoints and reference-level speakers

Bo 1972, I've been listening to two-channel for a lot longer than 16 or 18 years. With rare exceptions (such as recordings with phase anomalies), two-channel stereo doesn't produce 3-dimensional sound. Unless of course there's a problem in the playback chain. In that case it would be better to call it 3-distortional sound.

Glory,
Your posts and comments seldom make much sense to me or are worthwhile. Let's just agree that we communicate differently and leave it at that.
Charles,

With rare exceptions (such as recordings with phase anomalies), two-channel stereo doesn't produce 3-dimensional sound.

My experience of 30+ years paints quite a different picture. And without exception, such performance requires a tube line stage / preamp with tube regulated PS to pull it off in spades.

When I can follow musicians moving around on stage, closer to me and further from me, and not just lateral positional changes, I'd call that 3D.

That is why I said: I am better in sound than in words. Sound says it all.

Comparing between different options is the fun part of audio.

In 7 years of time I tell people first the difference between 2 and 3 dimensional sound. After this I give a demo. When they go to other shops they come back. And Always give the same answer; 3d is so much more involving.

I also hear it in the reactions. People who have a 3d sound play a lot more music compared to people who play 2 dimensional.

People who played 2 dimensional and play now 3 dimensional. Say that they never had so much fun in listening.

At the end audio is about music and listening. So keep it simple and convincing.

The gold colour makes it look cheap and F...ugly. I don't understand why they didn't use a silver look.

The choice of brass is purely a matter of material science. Furthermore, the fabrication and material cost is significantly higher than Stillpoints. They are substantial pieces.

I am glad you like your Stillpoints. i have owned both and at this juncture prefer SS.