primaluna gear, avalon eidolon speakers, cardas

In my experience Cardas works better with Avalon compared to MIT. Because they have those properties which an Avalon is not that good at. Avalon ( I sold it for over 6 years) has a wide an deep stage. But within this stage the individual focus of instruments and voices it not thar sharp. Cardas is very good at individual focus in instruments and voices. You get a better endresult.

Bo, I find your assessment of Eidolons unusual. Could you describe your rooms length and width, speaker distance from front wall (the wall behind the speakers), and the amount of toe in?

Your priority of wire material over actual cable design is, well…whatever, it's an interesting opinion.

Since I do Professional roomacoustic ajustments, the old rules are not there anymore. I can even get a stunning sound in the worst room in acoustics you can imagine.

In the time I sold Avalon. We mostly sold it with MIT. With the knowdledge today I have proven that it is the biggest bullshit on earth that it is the best match.

I have proven with new Audioquest cables that it outperforms MIT with ease!

Why? Becaue you need to understand the properties of Avalon and also from MIT. Then you understand why they are not the best match.

They both give a wide and deep stage. But they have the same weak point in sharpness and realistic proportion of instruments and voices. They both make the stage too big in proportion togheter.

What does Audioquest better with Avalon compared to MIT?

The dynamics in the low frew go deeper, better timing and you hear more layers of the lowest freq. The mid freq. are a lot more open. Voices and instruments get a far more realistic proportion. For the first time you get an intimate stage with the Avalon speakers. Instruments and voices are so much better touchable. There is more resolution in the high freq. as well and more decay ( also in the right and left corner behind the speakers). Even blacks are a lot better as well.

When people don't open there eyes or even better there ears. You still would think MIT is the best combi. It is based on f... nothing. How stuppid you can be to believe that words are the truth!

Hearing is believing, and that is why the best and most convincing sound Always will win. That is the thing I love most in audio. :)

Avalons need no or almost no toe in.

People have to open up there perspective. You Always need to get for the best sound possible. This is only possible when you try more different options.

In the past I never heard a set with Avalon and MIT what was realistic in my point of view. I have said many times to people that a violin sounds so much different in sound.

The most irritating thing is how it is projected. A voice and also instruments are so much smaller and more direct in real. I am often surprised that people don't hear the weak individual focus with Avalon and MIT. They should listen to a violin in real. Believe me it is much smaller.

When you change the MIT by Audioquest cables you enter a different world. But one which is so much more precise. Since I do the comparison between the cables I never heard a person who said the MIT is better. Or you must be f....deaf!

I don't see how the physics of a speakers signal arrive time at the listening position due to improper speaker placement and poorly timed room reflections (old stereo rules) can be overcome without using digital room correction.

I experimented with my Eidolons out of position and a technician using the professional version of Audyssey room correction. The room correction clearly improved the out of position performance. It was equally clear that proper speaker positioning out preformed room correction, at least in my room. Lucky me.

The Professional Audyssey calibration did have an advantage over the Pioneer Elite MCA room correction in my Home Theater room. Fortunately, a simple adjustment of the MCA calibration program brought my HT system indistinguishably close to the Audyssey calibration. This was well worth the cost of the Professional Audyssey technical assistance as was the experiment in the two channel room.

I apologize for the Eidolon toe in question. It was a childish attempt at questioning your knowledge of the basic Avalon design principle. I'm satisfied to agree to disagree with your use of room correction in the two channel application.

Other than a brief audition in an unfamiliar environment of the then impressive Spectral/MIT/Avalon 2C3D demonstration years ago I have no practical knowledge with the MIT/Avalon relationship. I'm not one to second guess Avalons use of Cardas internal wire not to use Cardas Golden Reference speaker cable and interconnect throughout my system.