Avalon Indra vs Sonus Faber Cremona M

Coming back to the comparison of Cremona M to Indra, it would be much more fair to compare the Italian with the Avalon Ascendant, which is more or less in the same price range (the Avalon still costs more than the Sonus Faber in Holland). Which speaker would come out on top then? Any one who compared the two?

For starters I don't audition speakers in dealer rooms. There is no way you can tell what a speaker sounds like in different rooms. To say that one speaker sounds better than another in different rooms on different gear is ridiculous.

I completely agree with you.

I had the chance to compare the WP8, Avalon Indra, Eidolon and Isis in the same room with the same equipment behind.

My room had a dip at 65hz and a bump at 40hrz so speakers will sound different my room compared to your room.

The other thing is a speaker that cuts off around 38hz but goes down to 28hz and has low output or doesn't move much air is less likely to affect the lower midrange. If you add a sub to your Andra listen to what it will do to the midrange. That is what all full range speakers have to tackle. Not easy.

I get -3db 24hz in my room with the Watt puppy 7. With the Eidolon I got -6db at 32hz.

Ok with the room effect you go down to 28hz, but i'm sure that the 70/100Hz is far to exagereted with that deep bass.

The eidolon is far more neutral so maybe it doesn't go that deep , but the bass and midbass that the avalon produce is (in my opinion) far better in term of quality


We always read in review that the bass region on WP8 is terrific, i don't think so

For me the midbass region is always the same and not enough articulate contrary to the mid bass of an indra for example

Size does matter to a certain point ;) Quality of bass is the key for me, but for movies WP8 's bass is great and go deeper.

I think the Wilsons sound really nice. However, the Indras really allow your components to come through; just make sure hour system is not too "etchy" or too "hi-fi"; you may get listening fatigue quickly.

Oops, haven't replied to your question of last week yet. I've come to love ceramic drivers ..., if they are expertly done (Avalan, Ayon, Tidal, Thiel). Though I can't say I've heard so many as to justify a statement of general superiority, so I won't. The thing is, they seem to perform exquisitely in an area that's high on my list of virtues: they are fast. Immediate attack, very natural decay. Is it they don't store energy that much as e.g. metal that upon release can muddle up the signal? The other thing is, they appear very uncoloured to my ear. For instance, I very much like Antonio Forcione recordings; the Tidals make for a beautifully melodious acoustic guitar where the instrument is played like that. On the other hand, Forcione will suddenly accelerate, hard slaps on the strings and the wood and... no speaker to spoil the fun! If it's inexpertly built though, you can get an edginess that is hardly enjoyable. Also, combining ceramic drivers with other material must be a very delicate art mastered by not so many. But again, I'm not fixated on ceramic drivers. (Well, I like to work with ceramic kitchen knives also, but apply them wrongly and you can bid farewell to your knife, so I use Aritsugu knives just as often ;^))
Karel

Follow up. I went with the Indras first. Changed the amp from the Montrachet to the Shindo CC 80 mono blocks (huge difference). I then began the source changes. Upgraded to a large Clearaudio Magnum. Nice subtle change. However, it was when the graham Phantom was put in that it really sang. An ebony TR cartridge followed, and a nice subtle change happened. Finally, I changed the turntable to the Brinkmann Bardo (massive effect). System stable now for 4 years and no desire to change.