what kind of audiophile are you ?

In retrospect, I think Shadorne has hit on it. Those with systems where they are feeling musical bliss, those constantly changing out gear seeking bliss. I unfortunately fall in the latter group.

the quad is the leaast inaccurate in reproducing instrumental timbre. i have heard piano, harpsichord, oboe and other instruments sound more natural on the quad 57 than when reproduced by any other speaker.

the only way to demonstrate the superiority of the quads is to assemble a number of speakers, record an instrument and compare the sound of the recording reproduced by each speaker with the sound of the instrument.

by the way there is more to sound than timbre. rather than ascribe the epithet "sound fanatic", i would substitute "timbre fanatic".

>>the quad is the leaast inaccurate in reproducing instrumental timbre<<

In your opinion you meant.

As far as demonstrating the quads "superiority" that will still be a subjective determination based on each listener's preferences and abilities.

So, your initial assertion is simply flawed.

my initial assertion regarding the quad 57 is a hypothesis.

here is a proposed test, constructive criticism sought:

aassemble several pairs of spekears, chosen by "experts", believed to be minimally inaccurate.

select a room which is well behaved.

configure a stereo system in the room.

record an instrument, say, a guitar, for 2 or 3 minutes.

while the musician plays the guitar, take measurements using a spectral analyzer at the listening position. print the graphs. then play the recording, taking measurements and print the graphs. repeat this procedure with each pair of speakers. the control is the graphs generated when musician plays, i.e., the independent variable. compare these graphs to the other graphs generated when recording is played through each pair of speakers.

can also compare , subjectively and hence opinion based, the instrument to the recording via listening panels judgments. this approach is not reliable.

i prefer comparing graphs, which although not "perfect" , provides an objective measure.

i realize the impracticality of finding a room and selecting components, but it's a first step.

Actually, speaker distortion is very very measureable. Yes, it is room dependant, but getting a low distortion signal generator (ie Tek 505) and putting out through various speakers would at least give a relative level of distortion.. pink or white noise would also work, but a low distortion sig gen measured by a Bruel and Kjaer microphone with a 2610 or 2636 measuring receiver would definitively show diferrences in total harmonic distortion. The problem being that at different levels, different drivers will have different distortion patterns and the debate would rage on........ I love what John Atkinson does with measuring speakers... he can reasonably predict certain behaviors based on historic, statistically significant data :)

That's just for THD. Which proves not necessarily a whole lot other than at a certain frequency and input level, driver or speaker a relative to driver or speaker b has more or less THD. And God help the man who measures at one speaker's crossover point vs another speaker crossed over at a different speaker.. hence maybe a swept sine captured on an FFT, which is what many speaker manufacturer;s do anyways.. it is a cheap enough suite to purchase if one is in the business.

How confusing was that????? ;)

Cheers,
Chris