Avalon Eidolon Diamond vs Revel Salon 2

@ bo1972, Nice speakers, I took a peek at what you have and use at the shows, $8,000.00 s.r.p is hard to believe to sound better than an exspensive speaker like the Avalon Edilon Diamond!, If this is a reality?, kudos to monitor audio!cheers!

Yes, the ceramic Avalons can disappear and image really well. But, tonally, they are thin through the mids right on up to the highs. I am involved with many, many concerts listening directly to unmiked horns, drums, piano, strings. Sorry, they don't sound that thin in real life.

This is the type of speaker I call an "audiophile speaker", and they do those audiophile checklist things: image, disappear, depth, detail, image, detail, bass, detail, top end extension, detail........but the sound of real instruments take a bit of a back seat, yielding a lot of detail, which making a speaker a bit thin-sounding enhances.

Float things in space, give lots of detail, that floats audiophiles' boats. Did I mention the detail?

The Salon 2 camp is busy listening to MUSIC, not dissecting the sound of speakers, or the SOUND coming out of the speakers, which is what the Eidolon Diamonds are good at. The Salon 2 reminds you of music, not hi-fi. The Avalons are one of the several examples of speakers using the Accuton drivers that sound thin and resonant to many listeners. I never thought they could sound natural until I heard the Estalon. That's an example of a speaker using Accuton but with the naturalness that the Eidolon Diamond miss.

I own none of the speakers in my post so I have no built-in prejudice.

The Revels give you music. The Eidolon, sound. Big difference.

I owned the B&W 800 Signature in the past. Classical music was so much more natural than Avalon speakers. But B&W is very poor in cross overfilters. There is almost no depth, so I sold them. I still don't like the sound of Avalon. But this is a matter of personal taste. The thing I disslike most is the average touchable 3d image with very sharp individual focus of instruments and voices. Wenn you compare a Monitor Audio Platinum speaker with Avalon you know how big this difference is. And you can not go back to the average focus of instruments and voices anymore. A friend of mine had a concertroom with a Steinwaywing. A room for about 65 people. Here I learded how direct and small a voice or instrument sounds in real. I call this intimacy. When I hear Avalon speakers you are aware how much less focussed instruments and voices are and the lack of this intimacy in sound. I could not life with this with the differences in real in mind.

Commenting on Audiogon threads have, more often, become a pissing contest, or possibly a venue for those with an agenda. I would like to iterate the responsibility of commentators making overall assessments upon any one piece of equipment. I have heard Wilson speakers sound amusical within certain systems and absolutely magical in another. This has held true with several other assembled systems.
Genesis, Vandersteen's, Proac's, Tidals, YG's MBL's, Aerial's, Spendor's, Green Mountain, Venture's... with each the experience has offered a distinct presentation. Associated equipment, including cabling and isolation, typically varied; and, of course the space and room differed.
These contestable fusses about what sounds more real...Magico or Rockport...or fill in the mfg. is too often foundationless. It is in line with judging the quality of a live performance by the sound quality of the room. I usher a number of shows each year, with the opportunity to roam the theater. As vantage points change, so does the sound quality. Often, the sound is unacceptable. Denouncing the performers, I believe is poorly directed.
My objective in responding to Bo1972 is in defense of a speaker, I know from experience, is capable of impressing both audiophiles and music lovers. I also believe this to be true of most high and mid end systems...if the effort is put forth.