Avalon Indra/ Avalon in general
Petter -- Thu, 06/05/2008 - 15:48
Jon, the new thread is up. I agree, to discuss Avalon in a Quad thread is not the best.
I have been the very happy owner of the Indra for several months now. As I mentioned I use them together with the Edge NL 12,1 and the C-J ACT 2 Series 2 preamp. This pre/power combination really gets out the best of the Indra. There is no secret that Avalons need some power in order to do their thing. This may be their only flaw as I see it, high quality/ high output amps are expensive. The NL 12,1 don`t have any problems at all!
To make a long story short; I see no major faults in this speaker design. I have not compared it to the Kharma, Wilson and what have you. I see it like this; I know what I like. Other speakers may be better on certain things, the Indras may be better on others. $ 20.000,- doesn`t buy the best speakers in the world and there are always something better. But yes, I am very, very pleased.
I used to own the Ascendant N (latest version). Also a very good speaker, but not even close to the Indra.
It would be great to hear from other Avalon owners, their experiences etc.
And Jon; Yes please check out if you can get a pair of Indra or Isis in for a review. Could be interesting! Thanks.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Changa, this is your fellow Avalon (Eidolon) owner here. Your system configuration sounds phenomenal. I have heard Edge amplification with Avalons, and they are incredibly well matched. Combined with that Nice CJ preamp, you must be in audio heaven.
I know that the Indra's are a scaled down version of Isis and packs a lot of the same driver (and crossover?) technology. At $20k, they are at the same price point as the Eidolons (roughly). Given how good the Indra's sounded to me (and you and Jon), I suspect they outperform the Eidolons, which means that Avalon will need to do something with the Eidolon (Visions) to address this. I can only assume that Avalon will either drop the Eidolon Visions (but keep the Diamonds?), or revamp the speaker somehow and price it differently.
I'd be curious to know what, if anything, you may have heard along these lines.
From what I have heard (from others): The Indra is a better (what is "better") than the original Eidolon. And "different" than then Vision whatever that means. I guess that they are all good speakers, but the Eidolon is now an old model and might be changed or upgraded?
Here is a theory: The Indra was intended to be a replacement for the Opus but turned out so good that it now competes with their own Eidolon models. Then they may have to develope a new Eidolon. But, this is only pure speculations from my side. I guess that the Eidolon Diamond outperforms the Indras, but maybe not by very much? Well, they have the diamond tweeter, a larger woofer/cabinet/ different crossover (?) etc. The tweeter in the Indra is similar to the diamond, but my guess is that it is not up to diamond standards. But, it`s good!
Regarding amps: Yes, Edge and Avalon is a very good match. I have had several Edge amps, they are all great. The NL 12,1 is of course the best I have tried in my system from Edge up until now. And with the ACT 2 Series 2: Music sounding in the way that I like.
From what I heard, the Indra's - in the room and electronics driving them, definitely sounded better than the Eidolons I have in the room and electronics I am driving them with, and that's saying alot give that it was a show I heard them at. Lucien and his team did a remarkable job taming that large room and I give Avalon a lot of credit for that. I just couldn't really tell how much of what I was hearing was the speaker versus everything else.
Regarding the Indra's tweeter, again I beleive it is the same or at the very least modeled after what is in the ISIS (as is the midrange driver). It's the crossover, woffers and cabinet that are mainly different from the ISIS as far as I understand. It is essentially a scaled down ISIS.
If I may ask, what part of the country do you live in?
Syd; Roy Gregory (Hifi+) described the Indra as a "mini-Isis" and he might be on to something there. And compared to the Isis it really is a "junior"! But what they have done to the crossover, drivers etc I don`t know.
It would have been great to hear from other Avalon users in this thread, especially other Indra users. So, anybody....
Jon:
Please try to see if there is any chance for a Avalon review in TAS, the most interesting models would be the Isis or the Indra. They are competitive with the Magico`s, the Kharma`s, Wilson`s etc, all of them brands that are well covered over the last couple of years in TAS. If Avalon doesn`t want to be reviewed in TAS it is a desicion that is difficult to understand, but I don`t know their reasons obviously.
Syd; I am not from the US, not even close!
changabang: I own a pair of Ascendant N, and I saw that you used to do it. You say that the Indra's are much better. Can you describe a little more, and in what areas etc?
Joacim:
A part from the woofers (the same as in the Ascendant N, but here used as woofers only) the Indra is a totally different speaker. Everything from the enclosure, the crossover, the midrange and tweeter are different.
The short version is that it is better in all areas and not by a small margin either. Which it should be of course, the price difference considered. But if you can afford the Indra it is well worth the investment.
If you have an amplifier that works well with the Ascendant N you can use it with the Indra as well. As far as placement is concerned it is not more picky than the Ascendant N, at least not in my room.
The Indra is very revealing about what kind of equipment you are using so it really deserves the best possible amps, cables and source you can afford. Good luck.
Changab..
changabang: Thanks for further clarification!
""The short version is that it is better in all areas and not by a small margin either. Which it should be of course, the price difference considered. But if you can afford the Indra it is well worth the investment.""
The above gives me the "goose-bumps", because Ascendant is not bad either!
What I feel today, after having updated my system in many aspects (room, electronics and cables), is that the Ascendant today more and more feels like the "failing link". This in a way that I feel it's more within the system, than really can get out through the speakers?!
I feel I lack in; position, soundfield, separation combined with depth of the sources.
Could be that, on what you desrcibes, the Indra will close this gap!?
I'm currently playing on:
-Boulder 1010 and 1060
-Ayre C5-xe
-Cardas Golden Reference (speaker, signal and power)
So coming to amplification, as you mention, there should be no problem for the Indra's!? It's also partly what I'm into above, that there's more in the Boulder's than Ascendant really can get out...
I add a link so you can have a view of the system :)
http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/index.php?showtopic=5301
Please give me your email-adress in a replay on this forum, the PM function has been disabled. Thanks!
changabang: We've been in contact :D
Time has passed since above...
...and I'm now a very happy owner of a pair of Avalon Indra!
Compared to my old Ascendant N it's a revelation in difference, somewhat a little difficult to really understand to magnitude!
It really brings out the Boulder 1000-series to new heights, compared to past. Also, the Boulder 1000-series has impressed me even further after this switch of speakers. What a combo! It seems "bottomless"...
The Indra sounded fabulous at the recent Rocky Mountain Audio Fest. See our full report (along with Jonathan Valin's specific comments on the Indra) in the February issue of TAS (mails to subscribers on December 22).
I lived with Avalons for about two years (cumulatively); the Radian HC, Eidolon, and Eidolon Diamond.
Yes, the Indra is a great speaker. But, for half the price of the Indra the Ascendant N might just be a better deal. The Indra will go a tad deeper and the new tweeter is "better" than the one in the Ascendant N etc, but that will cost you $ 10.000,- more. All this depends on the room, the electronics and the listeners preferences of course.
I have extensive experience with both speakers and I know that with the right electronics, cables etc the Ascendant N comes very close to the Indra. Used in a normal sized room that is.
It is quite interesting to see and hear how much you can have for less money if one is willing to "sacrifice" the last few % of the bass, resolution etc. I know, I have tried this myself. I have "downgraded" from a full blooded high end system into a somewhat more "modest" system ( in audiophile terms ), although my current system must be considered as " high end ". When I hear my current system and compare it to the old ( from what I remember )I can honestly not say/ hear what I am missing.
And that is my point; I think that too many audiophiles are spending to much money on equipment, it becomes an obsession. You must dare to try to " downgrade " a system, but that is much harder to do than upgrading. It doesn`t automatically get any better every time you upgrade, but it sure gets more expensive.
Robert, this might be something to write about?
That's an interesting subject, changabang. Reviewers are frequently in the position of downscaling their systems when review samples are returned to manufacturers, or when one reviews budget and mid-priced gear. I tend to get accustomed to the new sound and learn to overlook the sonic shortcomings and enjoy the music. The sound quality is still far beyond systems I've owned in the past—systems that brought me much musical pleasure.
changabang: I'm bound to say that in my case I don't agree (partial off course :-)) I was able to have the Ascendant N next to the Indra for a while, and planned for doing some A-B tests just for fun. This to really see if it was worth the extra spending....
In the beginning I was not that impressed at all, and during the first days and week the Ascendant N surpassed. But, with more playing time they opened up bigtime. Now I've been running them for between 600-700 hours, and they are still developing...
I got tired of this very quickly... It was rather obvious (for me) that the Indra actually were better in all parameters (as you yourself also was into earlier above). Much higher resulotion overall, better controlled and performed bass, better on the mid and much better resolution in the high's. Overall also the soundstage now is a huge step up. Sizing of the music is also better, more lifelike. The whole musical scene is now more "complete".
The way the Indra's has brought out my Boulder-combo is really impressing. This is perhaps a bigger surprice than only the speakers themselves (goes partly hand in hand yes, but anyway...). I "understand" the Boulder 1000-series and it's credentials much better now than before.
Above is off course also in my listening-room, with my room's "non-affection" to the sound.
In a room of my kind, all attributes in the system are brought out in a "netrual" way. If anything is "coloured", it will also be presented as "coloured". If anything is "good" and has good attributes these ones will come out much clearer. For instance the Indra's are much better than the Ascendant on soundstaging, and this then in the room comes out much clearer.
I'm adding a link with pictures on my broadbanded accoustically treated room, with basabsorption made by the Helmholtz-principle. This so it's a little easier to understand what I'm into above :-)
http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/index.php?showtopic=5301&st=0&start=0
Anyhow, your thougts on down-grading is interesting! Overall there I agree. There is not many of us that are doing that, since we tend to go the other way around. There's definetely possibilities of finding a good and maybe also a better combo for less spending, x compared to y. (Matter of combo as well...)
I also own a couple of Avalon NP 2.0 (I think a very good speaker for it's price), and I've placed those one in my listeningroom. They were not so far away from the Ascendant N and the Indra's. But still, there were big differences when really sitting down and listen. Some lacks here and there, not the full musical picture etc. Still very good!
I believe in a way that Hifi is like fine wines, the more you spend it's diminishing to what you get but if you truly can appreciate and understand then you'll enjoy?! The stairs for upgrading are getting smaller and smaller, and the price to pay higher and higher.
Also not to forget, an area very often foreseen among us HiFi-geeks, our listening room's are generally badly looked after!
My investment made in the listeningroom has paid off more than the whole system itself!!
My Avalon NP 2.0 together with Arcam Solo Mini in the listening room easilly plays the "shirt" of my combo of Indra, Boulder and Ayre in the livingroom! This is the hard fact truth! (Frequency curve-Decay time-Energy time curve in the livingroom are terrible, and in the listening room it's "perfect", lifting the NP/Arcam combo to it's maximum)
Robert Harley: Looking forward to the feb-number reading more about the impressions of Indra :-)
Hi Joacim, I am glad to hear that you are satisfied with the Indra. Sure they are great speakers, world class in their price range. I have never heard Boulder, but from what I have read about them I have no doubt that your system sounds very good.
My "downgrade project" was in fact inspired by a couple of friends who have done the same, successfully I might ad. Like me they still have very good equipment, but on a smaller scale.
The important thing in audio is to find equipment that works well together. You can spend an enormous amount of money without experiencing sonic nirvana. You can spend much less and live very happily and this is my point. Which of course is not valid for everyone.
And I agree fully about room acoustics, treatments etc. I have a well treated, dedicated room, one of my better investments.
One advice if you have the possibility: Try Avalon with tubes. I have gone from high current high end amps to tubes and I am not going back to solid state any time soon!
Enjoy your music and system!
changabang: Thanks! I agree! Still, out there, not to forget...Ascendant is still a very good speaker...! It's not a "big" downgrade you've been doing there :-)
Combination is all into it as well, together with taste and preference.
Yes, I've also heard about Avalon and tubes...that it should be something. For the moment I'm satisfied with the Boulders...
Did you look into the link to get a "better" picture of what I was into, when I was speaking about "treatment"?
I can see that you have taken the "treatment issue" very far, looks great! Would it be even better if you placed a rug on the floor? Does the room sound " hard " in any way? But, great system!!
I see that you have placed the equipment on the same line or even a little bit closer to your listening position than the speakers. Is this in any way interfearing with the sound/ soundstage? Or maybe it doesn`t matter at all!
Tubes:
Look at Audiogon and the Avalon systems under "Virtual systems". Seems to me that a lot of Avalon owners are using tubes. From what I hear in my room it is a great combination. As I am sure that your Avalon/ Boulder combination is!
Yes, I've taken it rather seriously...:-)
I believe (and now afterwards also feel) that it's very important for being able to bring out the "soul" of the equipment to a maxximum of truth.
My preference is also for "neutral", so hence the treatment I have in my room now are really "neutral" to what comes from the source.
The Avalon Indra's for instance are rather " neutral" and they are also thought through in regards to construction! Not every high-end speakers are this for instance... It's regarding having a built in "baffel step compensation filter", which if not results in a lift in the bas-region. This so that they should not sound "bas-weak" in rooms with few room-resonances.
In my regards: I lift my hat for Avalon!
On the contrary my room sound as soft as a "feathers touch". There's no "contribution" from the room, but the room brings out many positive attributes like; ambience, timbre, soundstaging, resolution etc.
In a sense what the room does (might sound strange!) is to let the brain have time to process the information in a proper way and then hence giving above impressions.
All reflections in the room that affects the brain/hearing negatively are broadbanded diffused with diffusors. The important part is just "broadbanded". The room is broadbanded diffused in the range of 300-16.000Hz and treated in the bas-range by Helmholtz-principle (HH). In total I have 15 HH of various sizes (in total appr 4.000 litres) and individually tuned for the room nodes. This means the rooms resonances itself are minimised! This all results in that the reflections (and negatively room-contributions) are brought down with a level of -15dB. Hence I can hear the direct sound from the speakers in an outstanding way, without negative room-contribution! Also, what this diffusion does is to keep the room "alive" in regards to sound experience, compared to an softly absorbed room. (I don't have any soft-absorbation at all in the room!). Frequency curve (with the Indra's) are within +/- 3dB from 20-20.000Hz (yes, they are playing down to 20Hz in my room). Decay time (in T20) is at around 0,3 sek flat from 100Hz up to the 20.000Hz-range.
In my room it's for instance possible to both record and play up again, without any contribution, the only thing needed is to adjust dynamics. What you record and later on play up in the room again are actually what you will hear!
There's no "masking-effects" in the mid's (very common otherwise) contributed by the room-resonances, this since there's minimised room-resonances.
The sweetspot is much much wider than "normal". (I can listen from various positions; sitting, standing etc and I get a similar sound-experience)
The room's very low Q-value makes speaker placement much less critical (they can be placed pretty much anywere in the room without contributing room-effects.)
Here's a link, were you can go in a scroll down on my room's various curves: frequency, decay and energy time:
http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/index.php?showtopic=5301&st=150&start=150
Regarding the carpet/rug. I don't need to have a carpet, partly since my whole roof is broadbanded treated with a "Golden Horn" construction. Also here Linkwitz Still has come to interesting points (quote):
"first arriving floor reflection will have less than 6
ms delay. This does not appear to cause a problem.
After all, almost every source that we hear has a floor
reflection and we seem to use this information
primarily to determine the height of the source above
the floor.
The requirement for full spectral content of the
reflections rules out the use of frequency dependent
absorbers on the room surfaces. The various
commercially available foam or fiberglass panels
absorb predominantly higher frequencies only and
would color the room reflected sound dynamically to
where it no longer can be cognitively separated from
the direct sound. This then argues for relatively live
room acoustics that are determined by the .normal
stuff of life. with which the room is filled and
decorated, acoustics with which we are intimately
familiar as normal."
The carpet/rug itself drainage all positive contributions given by the diffusion (ambience, timbre etc), and if "heavy" it also worsen the attack in the mid-bass region! I'm though tinking about up-grading the room with some floor-diffusors, but this might affect the "height-information" of the soundstage negatively?! (Taste and preference!?)
Placement of the equipment. No the placement does not affect so much. The most important thing is to think about the height! It can't come up higher than the range of 2 feet, then the information in the mid's will be affected negatively.
Tubes, in general... Here I put out my "chin"... Tubes tend to roll-of and soften the frequency-curve (higher distortion and very selldom "neutral"). In room's with not perhaps sufficent accoustics tubes can be prefered as "better" due to the character of "glow", "softness" etc. These rooms are then having a character of (as you mentioned) "hard" and also "sharp" thanks to the room-contributions (tubes will then "soften" the sound-experience and might slightly improve on other experiences of the sound). I believe in my room tubes will be a downgrade, particularly on the amplification-side...
Another thing about my room. I believe I've seen in recent advertising in the TAS a room in Boca Raton that looks very similar to my own?! (Otherwise it seems that very much in US is all about soft-absorbing in various ways...:-(...)
Changabang is out, in comes Petter! Better so; real names, real people.
It seems that you Joacim know what you are doing and for that I have the deepest respect. I have taken a slightly easier way of treating my room. Based on experience. I wrote for www.stereotimes.com a review of the Daad in 2007 if memory serves me right. You can read about how they worked in my room and how I was able to reduce the total of Daad to a minimum and still get a pleasent (almost full) effect.
My system is not like the one listed in the review anymore, but that doesn`t matter.
As a long time Avalon (now Eidolon) owner and admirer, I must confess I was somewhat surprised by the high level of clean, easy and dynamic music the Magico V3 was capable to produce. To my ears it outperformed the Indra's in these areas. The Indra had the nod in soundstaging and detail. But this was the first time my ears heard serious competition for the Avalons. As the Indras are price-wise in a range similar to the Magico V3, I am curious to read what your experience is with these two speakers.
Hi.
Due to some log in problems (couldn`t remember the log in details etc) with my old nick, janpe is the same person as petter. FYI.
I have the Indra again, my second pair in fact. I am very happy, with some german high end electronics. The V 3 and the Indra is app in the same price range, I would love to hear the Magico speakers myself. My guess is that they are both very good speakers, but different.
Janpe is the webmaster of the norwegian importer/distrubutor of Avalon: Audiofreaks.
Central, could you please identify yourself? Yes, I was the " occasional webmaster ", but why are you mentioning this? What is your motive for that? Well, I guess that you are one of the hysteric people from the site we both know. I suggest that you either write something useful in this thread if you are a Avalon user yourself or just leave it.
The intention with this thread was to hear from other Avalon users and their experiences. Where I live there are not to many of us and I think that we all can learn something from each other.
Is there anyone who has had the opportunity to compare the Indra with the V3?
Dear Mr Harley,
i recently sold my beloved eidolon diamond's, and am actually considering to buy either magico, m3 or possibly m5, or yg acoustcs anat, or rockport antares (used from a friend) or tad r1.. what do you suggest me?
I prefer open detailed transparent cleen fullbodied and fast sound...
(actually my sistem consists in dcs digital gear with audioresearch amps (ref 600/2) and mit ma cables)
thank u very much...
Alex
Those are all excellent choices. If you can afford the M5, it's certainly worth an audition.
Alex, ever considered the Audiomachina Maestro?
IMHO, forget YG. I prefer Magico over Rockport (disclaimer I own the Mini II). Rockport enclosures make the sound a little 'dead' to my ears.
WSLAM:
mister objective: Have you really heard the YG-ANAT? Also have you really heard the MAESTRO?
Here's a link to the new Avalon TIME, I believe the new replacement for the Eidolon. It was the first time I've seen it anywhere so maybe it was debuted in Taiwan?
http://www.audionet.com.tw/images/stories/122/09show850P01.jpg
http://www.audionet.com.tw/images/stories/122/09show850P02.jpg
http://www.audionet.com.tw/images/stories/122/09show850P03.jpg
Heard it a few weeks back at the HKAV show, good potential but marred by huge room and really bad music selection (birdsongs and waterfalls AND harp, anyone). I think it is meant to go btwn Eidolon and Isis, as it cost 100% more than the Eidolon Diamond @ almost 70k USD.
Aspects are the sleeper though, well impressed, like a perfectionist version of the midsized Harbeths and Spendors, very lucid, musical and full bodied. Despite hating the way they look, they are truly enjoyable speakers. But this it someone who disliked "old Avalons(pre-Patel)".
Is there an ideal room size, or range, for a given speaker to perform its best? My room size is 10 feet wide by 15 feet deep. I have been using Eidolon Vision speakers for the past 5 years and have been very happy with them. Some have said that this speaker is too much for this size room. I have thought about the Indras as an upgrade, and possibly a better size match for my room. I do like the Vision's 11-inch woofer, and am also wondering how the Indra's two 7-inch woofers would compare re bass. A lot of factors to consider here. Opinions welcome!
If you like the Eidolon (like I do), do try the Transcendent as next step. Do not get put off by it's lowish price for High End speakers, as they are the first Avalons after the Eidolons that I find to be fully balanced in terms of tonal balance, resolution, 'blackness of background', and imaging. It is as much a musical chameleon as the Eidolon is, with all the virtues of state of the art high end speakers. It's bass extension is closer to the Eidolon than that of the Indra's is, whilst providing better control and transparency 'down low'.
Would you consider that both the Indra and Transcendent would be an improvement over the Eidolon Vision? How would you compare their bass extension with 2 7-inch woofers to the Vision's single 11-inch?
The Indra betters the Eidolon in terms of transparency and resolution, but the Eidolon is still the more evenly balanced, neutral speaker. It is also able to set a grander stage. I would never 'upgrade' from an Eidolon to an Indra. The Transcendent in my view combines the best of both speakers. Where the Indra sometimes sounds a bit curtailed, or out of breath in the bass, the bass extension of the Transcendent is remarkable. It goes deeper than the Indra, and it has more control down low than the Eidolon. For large rooms, the Eidolon provides more wallop, but after listening to the Transcendent, you might argue that it is some bass addition by the Eidolon. In that sense, the Transcendent is truly a 'new school' speaker, like the latest Q's from Magico. But unlike the Q's it is not very finnicky about the partnering electronics. It is easy to drive and although you will hear all limitations of the electronics, it does not let them get in the way of you enjoying your music. I've got them in my hous now for three weeks, and I consider the review of Alan Sircom to be spot on.
Sorry to digress but has anyone auditioned the new Avalon Transcendent ? Please share your views if you have.
just look at the comment above yours?