Kharma CRM3.2 FE vs Sonus Faber Amati Anniversario

I 'm sure that changing to the Von Schweikert's would be a step up from the Vandy's if I got in the $20k+ range of the line, however, they won't clear the WAF hurdle that initiated this quest to replace the 5's. My musical preferences are jazz, classical, and a mix of other genres (Blues, Bluegrass, 60's rock and soul, pop). I don't want to give up anything that I'm getting with the Vandersteens, but realize that it will be costly to improve on their sound plus make a major advance in appearence.

Addendum: Musical preferences= good PRAT, clarity of mid-range for reproduction of voices, including massed voices, good bass for classical orchestral fundmentals, good dynamics. Don't need razor sharp imaging, or exagerated depth, or "analytical" sound.

Check out the Eggleston Andra IIs, they could be your cup of tea: great dynamics with deep bass, refined sound, transparent but never harsh, good looking (IMO) and not large as the Vandys.

My 2 cents: I have the Kharma 3.2s & IMHO they play classical, jazz (& all instrumental music) with a unique goodness that I have not heard anywhere else. What Jonathan here calls micro-dynamics is something not to be dismissed lightly. To expand on this, it is a kind of micro-soundstaging that can exhibit the position of individual keys on a piano or the waving of a trumpet while playing, or the distance of a voice from a microphone. All of this, coupled with, to my ears, the almost perfect tonality captured for each instrument, is amazing. Yep, other speakers may have more of a golden glow or more resolute bass, but the Kharma 3.2s just sound alive without being brash or pushy. They are really in a class by themselves for the things they do right. I actually think the bass is one of their best qualities, as it associates bass notes with the instrument producing it and never pumps or thumps annoyingly. It is a warm, friendly bass that is quite deep (35hz I am guessing.)
While not producing a huge soundstage, the space it creates sound like a true 3-D area, not an artificial version of it.
Caveats: A harshly recorded voice can sound buzzy. Also, mine took about a year to break in. But now, I could not part with them. The more I live with them, the better I like them. (My amp is an Edge NL12).
I toured the NY Home Entertainment show for the last few years and really like nothing better except possibly the $60K Von Scheikert VR9s (but I actually thought the 3.2s had a more integrated & friendly bass).

I agree with Rgs92's comments for the most part. Except, I would say that the 3.2s do produce a huge soundstage. In fact, the speakers' soundstaging capability is probably one of the things that is most immediately apparent.

Since you're concerned about aesthetics, you might want to know that the 3.2s are very friendly speakers to place. You can pretty much have it close to the rear wall without having the bass sound too boomy. Some have the speakers really close to the side walls with success as well.

I listen to instrumental jazz a lot and to me, the 3.2s' best attribute is its production of instrumental/tonal colors. The speakers sounds very flat, so it might not appear to be a "dynamic" speaker until you play a good recording. Only then, would you find the sound to be "explosive". Associated equipment and cables can make a big difference in my experience.

I listened to Sonus Faber (Guarneri, Cremona, and Amati at the time) extensively before purchasing the 3.2s (I also had aesthetics in mind). With the 3.2s, you really do get the whole "vivid digital picture" analogy, while Sonus Faber was more analog softer picture (different but no worse).

In terms of bass and dynamics, the 3.2s are fast and articulate, while the Sonus Faber's bass tends to be just a tad slower which tends to give it more oomph! Basically what I'm saying is that high pitch instruments can play very dynamically, but for some music, having the bass fundamental correct is the key.