Kharma v Focal v Avalon

Defride,
I own the Kharma .I have been having it for the past few years.What It does best:

1}Transparency

2}Dissapearing almost like an open baffle and electrostatic speakers.

BUT,The speaker is so unforgiving to inferior electronics,cablings ,resonance control Etc...

If you set it up properly ,you would be in Audio Nirvana,very few speakers could come close ,let alone bettered it.

Focal Diablo is what I call a "nice" speaker.It Does ALL things right ,BUT The "goosebums' factors are not there.

The Avalons I have heard are limited to hearing them During HiFi shows,I think they have a certain Characteristics-the Avalon sound.The Lesser models are not very impressive.

If you decide to go with the Kharma,you need to change the amp.If you need to keep things as it is ,you probably would be safer with the Focal...

The other thing with the Kharma is that it is unforgiving of a recording, especially a tipped-up one, and there is not much you can do to fix that. It can sound as good as it gets or unlisteneble depending on the CD I used.
As Culture Club said, Kharma Chameleon.

Having taken in the great advice here and spoken to a fair few others with direct experience of them and my system I think its going to be the Kharma's for me though 2.3ce rather than the 3.2's. We'll see come the weekend.

Thanks again for the comments.

If you do go with the Kharma 2.3ce, you will happier with the bass reproduction than with the 3.2ce. While I have not listened to the Focal or Avalon, I have lived with the Kharma 2.2ce in a 16.5 x 23 ft room for a number of years and am quite happy.

If you listen to Hard Rock, Electronic, Metal etc I would go for the 2.3, if you listen mostly to jazz, classical go for the 3.2!

IMHO