Ok, time for a little disclosure-I've been listening to the SP10's at my house for the past week. In short, I agree with most of what MattHooper has said and also what he related from JA sounds right.
There is some treble lift on these speakers but it's not B&W territory. It IS enough to make higher volumes fatiguing faster than on my Linton's or Snell's, but it's at volumes you shouldn't use for that long anyway if you want to keep your hearing. On the flip side, their accuracy and dynamics on instruments like horns are a joy to listen to. The opening title of Star Wars is several minutes of sonic heaven with a couple tenths of seconds of, "ooch, that was just a little much". The silk and paper combo is one of the better implementations of these materials that I've heard in a while. Instruments, especially horns and woodwinds, are clear, seemingly accurate and correctly sonorous without going too far. Voices are clear, clean, and very accurate down to small details and neither too far forward or back.
They definitely are easy to drive. A 130 wpc home theater receiver has no trouble driving them to room-crushing volumes, but also even a Willsenton R8 at a claimed 45 wpc easily drives them louder than you could possibly want. They play loud very cleanly and seemingly effortlessly. Cranking them up is fun and very rewarding minus the eventual fatigue if you go too high. They do not play quietly very well. Both the Lintons and especially the Snell's excel at this - it's one of my favorite things about the Snells- they manage to sound dynamic and enjoyable at virtually any volume down to a whisper. The SP10's have kind of a minimum volume before all the dynamics kick in. It is low enough but it's there. I don't understand what causes this behavior and it's annoying to defend the observation because I know the SP10's, Linton's, and Snells all measure as fairly accurate over a reasonable volume range, so why and how do the Snell's manage to sound so good at low volumes? I used to think it was because they are fairly efficient but now the SP10's counter that explanation.
Back to the SP10's. Their bass has much of the "fun" and "fullness" that I enjoyed with AJ's Elac DBR62's. Bass is tight, accurate, and full, a great combination. But the extension is not what I would call full range. My old Snell's with their 8" woofers but larger cabinets go deeper by at least several Hz and are a bit fuller in that very end of the range (The Snells are also rather inaccurate in the low-mid bass, giving them a false sense of depth, one of their weaknesses that one must account for). The Lintons also play a little lower, but also a bit less smoothly or accurately, and are more easily overpowered.
Soundstage and imaging are just ok. I agree with MH's comments that the image is a bit tricky. I've played around with toe-in also and currently have them aimed just behind my head in my listening position. Yes you can pick out instruments better than the Lintons or Snells but I also know exactly where the speakers are with most pieces. They do not "disappear". By contrast I often can't tell where Dennis Murphy's BMR's are when I've listened to those. Those are dang hard to pinpoint. My Snell's also form a cohesive image fairly easily, and I've always been happy with them aimed straight into the room, but they have their rear-firing tweeters so their soundstage is somewhat more illlusory than other speakers.
Other than the slight treble rise I didn't detect any glaring highs or lows but I don't trust myself on this, I'm not a musician or trained listener and until someone else points it out to me I often misjudge small inaccuracies in a speakers level measurement. That JA found them to be fairly flat matches my impression.
As an aside, while I still dislike the Willsenton R8 amp with my Lintons and Snell's (loose+loose=sloppy), with the tighter and more accurate SP10's the Willsenton amp adds a slightly more pleasant "rounding" to content and sands off a little of that treble lift. More testing is needed here.
