primaluna gear, avalon eidolon speakers, cardas

Since I do Professional roomacoustic ajustments, the old rules are not there anymore. I can even get a stunning sound in the worst room in acoustics you can imagine.

In the time I sold Avalon. We mostly sold it with MIT. With the knowdledge today I have proven that it is the biggest bullshit on earth that it is the best match.

I have proven with new Audioquest cables that it outperforms MIT with ease!

Why? Becaue you need to understand the properties of Avalon and also from MIT. Then you understand why they are not the best match.

They both give a wide and deep stage. But they have the same weak point in sharpness and realistic proportion of instruments and voices. They both make the stage too big in proportion togheter.

What does Audioquest better with Avalon compared to MIT?

The dynamics in the low frew go deeper, better timing and you hear more layers of the lowest freq. The mid freq. are a lot more open. Voices and instruments get a far more realistic proportion. For the first time you get an intimate stage with the Avalon speakers. Instruments and voices are so much better touchable. There is more resolution in the high freq. as well and more decay ( also in the right and left corner behind the speakers). Even blacks are a lot better as well.

When people don't open there eyes or even better there ears. You still would think MIT is the best combi. It is based on f... nothing. How stuppid you can be to believe that words are the truth!

Hearing is believing, and that is why the best and most convincing sound Always will win. That is the thing I love most in audio. :)

Avalons need no or almost no toe in.

People have to open up there perspective. You Always need to get for the best sound possible. This is only possible when you try more different options.

In the past I never heard a set with Avalon and MIT what was realistic in my point of view. I have said many times to people that a violin sounds so much different in sound.

The most irritating thing is how it is projected. A voice and also instruments are so much smaller and more direct in real. I am often surprised that people don't hear the weak individual focus with Avalon and MIT. They should listen to a violin in real. Believe me it is much smaller.

When you change the MIT by Audioquest cables you enter a different world. But one which is so much more precise. Since I do the comparison between the cables I never heard a person who said the MIT is better. Or you must be f....deaf!

I don't see how the physics of a speakers signal arrive time at the listening position due to improper speaker placement and poorly timed room reflections (old stereo rules) can be overcome without using digital room correction.

I experimented with my Eidolons out of position and a technician using the professional version of Audyssey room correction. The room correction clearly improved the out of position performance. It was equally clear that proper speaker positioning out preformed room correction, at least in my room. Lucky me.

The Professional Audyssey calibration did have an advantage over the Pioneer Elite MCA room correction in my Home Theater room. Fortunately, a simple adjustment of the MCA calibration program brought my HT system indistinguishably close to the Audyssey calibration. This was well worth the cost of the Professional Audyssey technical assistance as was the experiment in the two channel room.

I apologize for the Eidolon toe in question. It was a childish attempt at questioning your knowledge of the basic Avalon design principle. I'm satisfied to agree to disagree with your use of room correction in the two channel application.

Other than a brief audition in an unfamiliar environment of the then impressive Spectral/MIT/Avalon 2C3D demonstration years ago I have no practical knowledge with the MIT/Avalon relationship. I'm not one to second guess Avalons use of Cardas internal wire not to use Cardas Golden Reference speaker cable and interconnect throughout my system.

I measure at different hights and places compared to Audyssey uses it. I also use Audyssey EQ and Volume my way. The endresult is superior to what you can achieve with the Aydyssey way. I also modyfied the tripod so you can use the microphone a lot more precise.

When you compare Pioneer with Onkyo there is a huge difference in stage wide and depth. Pioneer is fully useless because it is a 2 dimensional brand.

It is unusual and a big luck that Onkyo can give a deep and wide stage. I Always test every single brand in how deep and wide a stage is. I was very surprised that Onkyo could give a deep and wide stage. I was not expecting this to be honnest.

When a brand is not able to give a deep and wide stage it Always will be useless for highend.

I said it many many times; Roomcorrection is only 1/3 th of the whole Audyssey Pro package. Many highend people went nuts wenn I could let them hear many new things of there well know favorite music.

Audyssey EQ and volume give me the freedom to create a much better articulation of voices. Without it, I cannot achieve it. It is not possible with other even extreme highend pre amps. My old Pass XP-20 could not give me this level.

Most of my clients who bought Audyssey Pro only listen to stereo. I also listen for over 80% in stereo.

I have heard many MIT/Avalon/Spectral systems in 16 years of time. I didn'nt like any of them. Different collegues at the time had the same feeling I had.

You have to hear it to believe it. Hearing is believing. And that is the only thing that counts. And this makes it a lot more easy.

I create a lot more information on the other hand, but also a much more involving sound. Because emotion in sound is the key to listen for hours and hours.

This will Always be the main goal! That is why I say: I don't sell boxes. I sell emotion. My focus is Always on the endresult. This need to be perfect.

When a part of a system of a client is not able to get he full package of what I call Total sound. I breng in parts which make them complete. So they know what they need to get the full potential.

When exposed to audio opinion bullying from a psuedo technical gasbag like Bo, who bases his seemingly inexorable conclusions on "16 years of selling things," it's important to not lose sight of the actual realities of great hifi sound...i.e. well designed gear set up with care. Digital room correction works as advertised to alter (compress) room bass modes, and will apply the sonic opinions of the designers on you with aplomb. You may really like the sound of this stuff! However, as a professional musician, live sound engineer, and distractingly handsome classic motorcycle aficianado, I've been doing an informal survey of serious musicians and audio freaks I work with (who don't sell gear) regarding their opinions on Room Correction Gizmos...guess what? Among those who seem to care about home audio enough to have an opinion, there is near universal agreement that "less is more." I often get the "why stick another box of wires in the signal path if your rig already sounds great?" response from nearly all these guys. The answer from "too lazy to spellcheck anything" Bo and others of the "black background, driver speed, tempo pace...etc., etc." faux technical gibberish school is that, simply, your rig BLOWS CHUNKS and can't sound great unless you embrace a specific and absolute path of zero wiggle room silliness. I say you can "Go with Bo" or just set up the gear, sit back, and enjoy some music...oh, and see more live stuff as I need the money for my motorcycle problem.