Who has heard the new Avalon's?

I must tell you that as good as the newer Avalons are there has been a change in company policy in the last few years that makes me suspicious of the newer ported enclosures.Originally Avalon touted a sealed enclosure with a "Q" of point five as the "only means of obtaining accurate bass"response.They supplied an extensive manual with loads of documentation to support this claim.Also the "classic" and unfortuneately discontinued ASCENT mark 2 was built to a standard that is not seen in the newer designs (as good as I'm sure they are).The ASCENT had a 55lb external crossover and a thicker front panel.It was considerably more massive(weight) than the newer EIdolon or Diamond models.More importantly it was a very easy load to drive and all of this along with a stunning transparency make this speaker'even today S.O.T.A.I've been told by 2 industry insiders that it was the best product Avalon has ever made.The point being that these companies are in business to sell product in order to make money.It does not mean that they are not good products,but, an experienced audio consumer should know enough to be able to tell the difference between true high end crafted products and those designed to enhance a corporate bottom line.Any comments would be welcome.

The Classic and the Ascent (and the Radian and Monitor, I think) were the original designs of Avalon's founder, Charles Hansen, now of Ayre. Every model since then has been designed by someone else and so it is reasonable that the design objectives may have changed. Consumers wanted more bass, hence the ported designs.

I own Eclipses (and have had Avatars as well). A good friend here owns the new Ascendant. He liked the Eclpises sound better than his new Avalons.

Fernando

Drubin.Tou are correct that the original designs were designed by C.H.and that the design goals have changed to give consumers more bass.However when you port a system you are enhancing bass volume (as in loudness)NOT bass accuracy.If you are or were privy to the extensive scientific documentation supplied with these earlier designs(the original owners manuals,which were extensive books)it would be obvious that a great deal of research had gone into outlining to the,then,Avalon owners that the designer felt a sealed enclosure was far more accurate than a ported design.Comparisons were made with virtually all types of low freq. systems (port,trans.line,servo etc.)proof was offered up in the way of graphs and measurements that clearly showed the superiority of a sealed box.I'm not trying to be defensive or antagonistic I'm merely claiming from a practical standard that Avalon felt they could sell more product by encorporating the crossover into a more manageable enclosure and decided to port it in order to make it more room friendly(I don't blame them,but they are LESS ACCURATE at reproducing bass and midbass).Take a look at the comments in TAS regarding the DIAMOND's mid bass quality.Better yet listen to a really well designed sealed enclosure(of which there are to few designs).I really am sorry if I sound Preachy,but I'm amazed at the number of pricey products from companies like Kharma,JM Labs,Wilson etc.that have loads of bass that the average audiophile(not music lover)can't wait to throw their bucks at.I have a friend,a retired reviewer,who has a 22 year old set of Infinity RS-1's(updated crossover) that makes a mockery of the vast majority of rediculously overpriced stuff out there.I don't mean to include Avalon in this category but having heard almost all of their newer stuff as well as the older "classic" stuff it just leaves me scratching my head at what the audio consumer considers acceptable(at these prices).

I pretty much agree with you. I used to own the Eclipses and I read that book cover to cover several times. I always felt, however, that its arguments about the bass were a bit specious--he said something about the Avalon approach conveying what the musician intennded instead of some artificailly enhanced bass. Oh really? A rock musician intends for you to feel the bass, and I rarely did with the Eclipse. And as much as I love what a .5 Q bass sounds like (tuneful to the max), the quantity of bass I got from my Eclipses was ultimately unsatisfying.