I guess my question would be did you actually listen to the Studios before you bought them? And if you like your Snells, then why buy a set of speakers that sounds so obviously different? I'm sure RGA's going to chime in with yet another Audio Note rant anytime now (and it'll actually be on topic this time because the ANs are supposedly based on vintage Snell designs). You should compare notes with him, since your impressions are similar to his.

My impressions of the 20 v.3s couldn't more opposite than yours. I found those speakers to be very dynamic with a wide range of material, and the overall tonal balance top to bottom was excellent. I did not notice any kind of discontinuity between one part of the frequency range and another. Those speakers also rendered acoustic instruments very realistically, and the imaging was about as pinpoint accurate as I've heard at this price point from a conventional box speaker. With my most demanding test disc (which was recorded direct to two-track), the Studio 20 v.3 produced one of the most startlingly realistic and engaging presentations of the music that I've heard, and I've been using that disc in my speaker listenings for about 14 years now. I find it very surprising that you make note of the bass pop on the v.3s because the more linear bass response is actually the biggest change between the v.2 and v.3 models (I own a set of the v.2s). Maybe you would have liked the v.2 Studio series better, because the v.3 series is a notably more refined speaker all the way around.