Marten Design Miles II vs Avalon Opus Ceramique..?

Rich,you are a breath of fresh air!!Someone liking what he has,and knowing it is good.
There are loads of compelling speaker/component matches,as I am sure you know.What you own,is superb,and you should be happy with that.
The Opus vs the Ceramic is really more of a situation revolving around component/room matching,and both are superb designs.
If you have selected good components to mate with your speaker,and if it is in a good room(important)you will know this instantly.
Unless you are bored,and want to spend money.I know of many friends who "go there",so you would not be alone.

Best!

Thanks Sirspeedy,

Nice to hear from a fellow Avalon fan.

I could not believe the numerous improvements the Opus made in my system. I was really shocked when I first put them in and I am always very suprised (maybe still in shock) to hear what these speakers can do. Always an amazing adventure with them when the stars line up just right.

The only way I would move away from the Opus is to find a speaker that sounds as good (I bet impossible) AND is a little friendlier to my Tenor OTL amps. In the 3 years that I have been running my system this way, I have only had one incident with the amps. I have to be careful on how I bais the amps and what tubes I put into them. But it is all worth it when that great sound washes over your ears.

Rich

Rmaurin: the next logical move would be the Lumen White White light - a real dream speaker.BUT the Opus Ceramique is great to (never compared it directly to the Lumen, but what i was told the Lumens are better than Kharma and Avalon.

Ceramic cone woofers and midranges have their advantages and their disadvantages.

Their rigidity gives them more piston-like behavior, which translates into excellent clarity (assuming a well-designed, low distortion motor).

However, a conventional cone of the same diameter will have a wider radiation pattern at the upper end of its range. When a cone goes into breakup mode its radiation pattern widens significantly compared to what the rigid piston model would predict. The result is a better radiation pattern matchup with the tweeter in the crossover region. Well-behaved breakup mode behavior can be beneficial.

So assuming otherwise identical, competently designed speakers, I would expect slightly better clarity from the one with the ceramic cone drivers and perhaps slightly more natural timbre from the one with the conventional cone drivers.

Duke