Maybe what Ron liked in PBN was coherence, dynamic range, the fact that drivers were well matched, instead of simply saying it did great because of size of drivers.
I have no idea. I think the M-T-M driver configuration contributes to coherency, as opposed to the low frequencies coming out of the bottom of the cabinet.
Also I really believe that you are much more particular and critical than I am. I think you have many more "deal-breakers" than I do. And that is, of course, totally fine, even admirable. But I think it explains why I think many more speakers are good to very good than you do, and it explains why I think very few speakers I hear are "sh#t."
I haven’t negated the value of size of drivers.
Of course. The sonic effects of the size of drivers, and in my view, of driver surface area, cannot be denied.
But I do not like Cessaro more than them just because it is bigger and taller.
I totally understand this. And I agree. As I said in my first reply to your opening post height is an independent variable.
In fact the tall size makes the Gammas less coherent.
I agree. The biggest Cessaros are darn complex speakers.
I do think Sasha 2 is a better speaker than Alexia 1 or the XVX or the various Alexandria.
Here is our different personal preferences in operation: the height and weight and grandeur of the XVX causes me to prefer it over the smaller loudspeakers even if the smaller loudspeakers are 1) more coherent, and 2) achieve proportionate scale, and scale up and scale down according to the recording.
With the Sasha 2 I feel like I never break free of listening to a small box on the floor.
Why should people stick to a paradigm if confronted with a better alternative? Especially as an active audiophile. I am not referring to those who just bought an early system and play some music while not caring much for the nuances of the hobby.
This I agree with, but here you are backtracking (which is good) from the opening post. My broadest objection to the opening post is not the concept of exploring other paradigms, of course. My broadest objection to the opening post was that you were treating as NL such explorers' rejection of that alternative paradigm if that alternative paradigm is one of your preferred paradigms.