Kharma v Focal v Avalon

I have heard the 3.2 and the Ascendant. If you have SET or low power tubes then you should probably lean to the 3.2 though expect a rear hall, very refined presentation. I was not blown away by what I heard.

The Ascendants get my nod but I think they want SS. Very lively and resolving, while maintain seamless balance and integration, and that famous Avalon holographic sound stage. However be warned they need to sit at least 5" out into the room, and more can often be better. If you are limited in that way do not lean to any Avalon speaker.

Thanks very much, really interesting responses.

Alectiong if not the 3.2 do you have any thoughts on the 2.3ce?

The 3.2 is one of my favorite speakers ever!

However be warned they need to sit at least 5" out into the room, and more can often be better. If you are limited in that way do not lean to any Avalon speaker.
Mmike84 (Threads | Answers | This Thread)

I'm sorry I meant to say 5' as in 5 ft!

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...