Revel or Vandersteins 3A's /Which is better?

These questions are always impossible to answer. When you ask "Better, better" at what? Something may be better to one person and absolutely suck to the next.
I find the Revel F30's kind of bright and not as much bottom. I find the Vandersteen 3A (not 3a Sig) a little conjested and maybe not as transparent as it could be-certainly not as transparent as the 3A Sig. However, it's easy to listen to, accurate(as for frequency response) and it's bass goes deeper. It does jazz and acoustic music very, very well. Voices come off a little more realistic.
Shoe likes the Revel, I like the Vandersteen. He is certainly not invalid in his opinion. His tastes run a little different to mine.
The point is, listen for yourself and make up your on mind!

Both sets of comments above are legitimate. Here's an alternative idea: get your 3A's upgraded to the "Signature" version. I owned 3A's and was pleased and a bit surprised how much improvement the "Signature" version provided. The 3A Sig's provide a significant improvement in the areas of detail and transparency, and I think the upgrade is well worth the rather modest cost. If, after doing the upgrade, you still have the itch to buy the Revels, you should have no difficulty selling your 3A Sig's.

Strad549,
i still have my 3A (huge sounstaging)in the storage,if interested let me know.Too big for my B/R,downsize to a bookshelves.

If you care about accuracy of harmonic content that is essential for proper definition of timbre, then there is no contest: Vandersteen does it , Revel, by design, removes harmonic content.

It matters to me, but it might not to you.

Just to clairify I had the 3A's not the 3A sigs. I would however like to try the Vandersteen 3A sigs. Have heard so many good things about them and did like the way they sounded at the dealer!