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.
I owned the Osprey's for two months before I sold them to a friend - he absolutely loves them. They probably weren't fully broke in as Meadowlark recommends a 300 hr break in period. If you don't listen to music very loud - it is probably a good speaker - I listen to mostly classic rock and thought they sounded terrible. To my ears the Osprey sounded extremely congested. I would STRONGLY recommend you audition other speakers that utilize a first-order crossover before you purchase the Osprey's. Having said that, the woodwork was absolutely first rate - great piece of furniture.
Best of luck.
I haved owned Ospreys for 8 months. Highly recommend them. Very musical, good at sound staging. Previously had Tyler Acoustics and JMLab Mini-Utopias.

I use in 2 CH all tube audio system. Listen to Jazz, Classical and some rock. Normal listening is 80 - 86 db. When I want to turn it up I listen in the 92 - 98 range for rock and Classical. I have not heard the congestion mentioned by Sedona. Plus I have heard them really loud at dealer with all solid state without congestion. So my guess is that what Sedona heard is system dependent.

If you want to feel the kick drum or Tympani then then speakers will NOT do it for you. A single 7" woofer can't deliver it. So either get a sub or move up to the Nighthawk.

- Ken
Thanks for the feedback...I normally listen to Jazz and Classical and with my current Shearwaters, they seem to be great...I am happy, just thought I get feedback for the Ospreys...Ken, do you like the Ospreys more than the Tyler and JMlab? Also, Nighthawk looks nice, but would be too big for my room. What are you driving the Ospreys with?

Also, that's Sedona...I don't really listen to rock much, but when I do, you're right, its not as good as my old Klipsch.

Thanks all.
I never owned them, but tested every model in their line for about 2 years now, everytime I go the shop,,,I cannot get into their sound unless its the larger model with the treated paper scan speak drivers...the name escapes me...

They always feel like there is a curtain in front of them...does that mean recessed midrange?
Do you mean the Blue Herons? the first version?
I have the Shearwaters and it has the paper scanspeak...
I don't experience the "curtain" feeling, just that they are a laid back sound, that's for sure!
So, what do you own Jsujo?
Sedona: If high volume freedom from congestion or compression is your priority, why do you recommend first-order speakers at all? (Asked as a Thiel owner, BTW...)
This response is targeted to Zaikesman's comment specifically:

Wait a minute! Do be careful when making a generalization such as that! If you wrote that sentence to ellicit a response, you got it!

I have Green Mountain's C1.5i 3-way floor standers. These are also 1st-order speakers & I cannot hear any high volume congestion! High volume congestion might be a "feature" of Thiel & Meadowlark speakers (from what Sedona & you state) but it is NOT a "feature" in GMA 1st-order speakers. I also suggest to audition/listen to one or more GMA products to convince yourself, if you haven't already.
Actually Bombaywalla, it's all relative. My Thiels (2.2's) don't offer quite the high-volume ease I would like in my current room, but it wasn't an issue in my previous smaller room. I know I could remedy this by moving to a different Thiel model. But I also know that no first-order speaker I've heard is going to be capable of the unfettered high-level dynamics of a Wilson, fr'instance (driver complement and cabinet size being equal). That's pretty much the nature of the beast, but to me some other sonic qualities that first-order designs can excel in (such as coherence) are more important for the kind of listening I'm realistically comfortable doing in my house.

I have gone thru chronolically:

Whatfedale Modus 8, bleh!

Platinum Audio 808's...great bass and surprisingly good sound.

Mission 773e's...I enjoyed them quite a bit,,,very lively with that nice aerogel driver.

Mission 774's same just more of it.

Pinnacle Classic Gold Aerogel,,,Best I heard up to date,,,midrange to die for, as well as low and solid base.

and now I have some vintage JBL L-96's...
Gee, I didn't know I would have to defend myself.
To Zaikesman: I wasn't recommending first-order crossovers, which isn't to say you wouldn't find them to your liking. I'm simply saying that I've heard two speaker co's with first-order crossovers (Meadowlark and Thiel) and I PERSONALLY didn't care for the sound of either one of them.
However, I have read glowing reviews about various Meadowlark, Thiel, and Green Mountain speakers, they are just not my personal preference. I guess that's why we are so fortunate to have so many speaker manufacturers to choose from.
I've owned two speakers that I've enjoyed: Innersound Eros and Von Schweikert VR4 Gen III - one an electrostat and the other a 'box' speaker.
I'm glad we are all talking about American made speakers.
Happy Listening - no matter what speakers you own!!!
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".
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.
Zaikesman, you wrote an excellent response and I, along with others I'm sure, appreciate your time and consideration, you made good points on all counts. I'm just glad everyone agree's we all have different sonic requirements, taste in music and audio equipment and nobody is 'right' and nobody is 'wrong' just 'to each his own' so.......... I wish happy listening to everyone and I thoroughly enjoy everyone's input on the forum.