I'm assuming you're talking about the Avalon Ascendants, and I can only offer comparisons between the Ascendants and the Vandersteen 3A sigs from having had both in my home (though I've listened to the Quattros at my dealer's and considered buying a pair). The Vandersteen sound and the Avalon sound in some ways may have more similarities than differences. Both image quite well, although I've found the Avalons to be more holographic, generally. Both manufacturers are concerned with time-alignment, and seem interested in trying to build a coherent top-to-bottom picture. The Avalons do one thing in particular that I like--they seem to respond to different equipment fairly readily. With some gear I had, I thought they were a bit too revealing for my taste (which is a problem I have with Vandersteens also...as can be seen in some of my earlier posts--and I recommend Michael Fremer's review of the Quattros in Stereophile from perhaps 18 months ago in which he describes an interesting concept of "too much information distortion"). For reasons I don't really understand, I've been able to "tune" the Avalons more easily by switching around equipment, and have gotten pretty darn happy with them. I never got happy with the 3A sigs, though I know many people have. I listen to a lot of classical music, and I'm not as excited about the Vandy's upper mids (where the strings of the orchestra live) as I am about the Avalons. I think maybe the Avalons do "subtlety" better than the Vandy's (to my ear). However, for chamber jazz, the Vandy's did a great job of doing the "you are there" thing with the right recording.
Overall, they're both very fine products. Bottom line is, I got happy with the Avalons in a way that I didn't with the Vandy's. But that's just my ears, in my room.
Overall, they're both very fine products. Bottom line is, I got happy with the Avalons in a way that I didn't with the Vandy's. But that's just my ears, in my room.