Speaker Solutions for lively room: B&W, Revel, Martin Logan or ??

Fix the room.

Area rugs and acoustic panels...

Not all acoustic panels are ugly, http://www.auralex.com/sonicprint/
There are many companies out there that are offering those type of artistic printed acoustic panels that are much cheaper now BTW, search the net... Clicky !!!

I'm actually getting some of these soon... http://www.audimutesoundproofing.com...treatment.aspx

/thread.

You can certainly do some acoustical panels, most of which are attractive in a modern, minimalist way. They can be ordered in matching or complimentary colors, or even with a pattern or "art." It may take four or six of them to pull down most of the reverberation, and they can fit unobtrusively into the room. I am speculating based upon my experience, but $400 worth of panels in that room will make a $1,000 pair of speakers sound better than a $10,000 pair of speakers in the same untreated room.

On the other hand, if you don't care about the sound very much at all, in deference to the decor, there's no sense in choosing one speaker over the other. They will all sound equally bad in that room. Digital EQ will do nothing. Limited dispersion will do nothing. The farther away you sit, the worse the problem will be. You've listed some excellent speaker brands, indicating that you may actually want the sound to be very good. For that, you have to address the room.

As have been said already, fix the room. I prefer LEDE, that is live end (the end where you sit) and dead end (where the speakers are).
In that case I would absorb behind the speaker and at the side just leaving about one feet non-absorb just in the middle behind the speakers (this is for compensate the built-in problems with the "stereosystem"). Some good fabric is also nice to have over some of the absorb parts.
Then I would use normal stuff as diffursors around where you sitting, like paintings, books, shelfs, etc. Behind you it is a good thing to have someting like bookshelves of DVD's/CD's/blurays, and preferly just a little bit out of order, so they don't become just like a "massive wall". Then ad a thick carbet on the entire floor and your done.

Good luck.

They won't. Please see my signature, as Paul's quote is completely apropos here.

Craig

I agree that fixing the room is the best idea from an acoustical standpoint, if not necessarily from a visual standpoint. However to do a really good job requires a lot of square feet of deep treatment if the room is really very live. Rule of thumb is that the area of 90% absorptive treatment should be at least equal to the floor area. If the treatment is less efficient, more square feet are required for the same amount of benefit. More is better..

My suggestion as a professional acoustical consultant is to treat as much of the room as feasible but if it remains too live, consider using highly directional speakers such as Magnepans, large electrostatics, etc. Since the major problem in a highly reverberant environment is likely to be a low direct to reverberant ratio, highly directive speakers can help almost as much as absorptive surface treatments. I once designed a system for a client that wanted it in a very hard atrium in his architect designed house. We used large Magnepans and the sound was truly magnificent despite the lack of treatment.

If the room is really live, no low directivity speaker, including most B&W's and Revels, are likely to sound very good. This from a critical listener with all B&W 800 series speakers (in a highly treated room).

BTW, a thicker carpet is unlikely to make much difference - it is still too thin. If you go that route, and there is at least some benefit to it, make sure the backing is not sealed and can breathe, and put it on a thick horsehair underlayment. But again, the carpet absorption is probably less than 20%, even if fairly thick, so it does not do much.