B&W Signature 805 vs Sonus Faber Cremona Auditor?

I've been happy with my Nautilus 805 but I'm itching to upgrade to the Signature 805s. Now Sonus Faber comes along with the Cremona Auditor and I've read great things about them. Any help?

Current Sys.
Classe CAP-151 Int. Amp.
Philips SACD-1000
Rotel 1070 cdp
i feel the same way and own n805. cant wait for the sounus to come out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
krell fpb 200c
meridian 568
and 596 dvd player
i am in the same boat too. i owned 805s and now have sf concertos. i am very interest in hearing the sig since i have heard a couple of people say they are a lot better then the nautilus. i can't wait till the auditor comes out too. luckily i have a dealer near by that sell both brands so i can ab all 4 of the speakers together. anyone know when the auditor i coming out? i spoke to dave a sumiko and i remember him saying it is coming out in april but when i spoke to the dealer he though it was coming out in two weeks.
Best sound among Big guy is Sonus Faber.
I have the auditors and listened to the 805 signature's. I still have not finished the room they are going in, or bought the electronics.

Here is my input:
The signature 805 was a great speaker, it imaged very well, and had a good balance, a little exagerated in the high frequencies.

The Auditor had more detail, more air, I felt it did not exagerate any fequencies. And I honestly feel it made more bass.

I listened to Diana Krall's Live from Paris CD. And on track 11 "A Case of You" I heard a almost wet sound in her voice in between words she was singing. The only other speakers I heard that same "wet" sound on were Wilson Benesch Arc's and a pair of Dynaudio Special 25(I could not afford them)

I listened to Might Sam Mcclain's "Give it up to Love" track five, the sound stage on the Auditor was bigger than on the 805. And in the beginning there is a piano playing and I was simply amazed by.
In the end both are great speaker's but I felt the Auditor was more suited for what I wanted to hear. That being said I really do not listen to much rock music so I did not play a single piece of rock when I demo'd any of the speakers, I have a felling that the 805's would probably do a better job with rock due to it's metal tweeter.
I can't any info on the Cremona Auditors. Where do they fall in the SF lineup? I am looking at the Grand Pianos and even potentially the Cremonas to replace my aging KEFs. Thank you.
The Cremona Auditors fall above the Concerto line in general.. they would be considered a significant step up from the Grand Pianos even given the fact that they are a stand mounted monitor rather than a floorstanding speaker.

After speaking with Bill from Sumiko, I am given to understand that the Cremona Auditor is the finest Franco Serblin design in totality since the Guarneri Homage, which many consider to be the ultimate Sonus speaker despite the greater scope of the Amati Homage. It is simly more in keeping with the "character" that is Sonus Faber.

So, the Cremona line is being positioned as a bridge between the more pedestrian "Concerto Home" series based around the Concertos and Grand Pianos, and the more esoteric "Classic" series based around the Guarneri and Amati Homages, and the classic stand mounted SFs like the Electa Amator II and the Signum.

The Cremona line is a new direction for the company, a new sound from them that is not a regurgitation of another design ethic, but an extension of lessons learned over years of building lute shaped designs.

The Auditor should not be confused as a "lesser" version of the full Cremona... it is a design statement in and of itself, and as such it replaces the Electa Amator and Signum, which are being discontinued as of the Auditor's release.
Just got back from auditioning these two speakers. It was my intention to purchase one of them tonigh, so it was some serious listnening. The setup had an REL strata, wich I also have at home. I started with the SF, I found them very pleasant, good detail, good imaging, good soundstage, nice resolution, but just not quite there for my taste. On harder hitting cuts, it fell flat on it's face, lacking dynamics on attacks. Not a bad thing, this was stevie ray vaughn - sky is crying cut 4. But on other material, like nora jones it seemed to lack intimacy and didn't get me as involved in the performance as I wanted. Again they did nothing really wrong and felt I could listen all day.

Then I swiched to the 805 signatures. Totaly different character. Faster transient response, more dynamic, more intimacy, and better transparency. At higher volumes (I play loud when it's rock, and lower when accoustic like) it reached higher levels without strain (so did the SF). Imaging was very good, but can't say for sure it was better. The guitar at the begining of "wish you were here" was extremely there, while on the SF, it was a bit dulled I felt.

Overall, I would not say the BW are "better", it really is an ultimate comparison and personal choice will be the only factor here, that much different. For reference, the music I played, was; nora jones, neil young, van morrison, stevie ray vaughn, pink floyd, roger waters (amused to death), pretender sing the beatles, Harry connick, eric clapton (unpluged), etc. So I didnt listen to any classical, or pure jazz, wich the boys at the shop hinted the SF do something magical with these.

All that being said, while listening to the 805's, as much as I was enjoying them, I got this feeling that it wasent' good enough....it was close, but I wanted more. Lucky for me they had a pair of 802 that I got for a few bucks more than the 805's so came home with those.

Yesterday, I was fortunate to be able to listen to the Cremona Auditor's at my local dealer. This dealer has a custom built single-speaker listening room approximately 18'w x 24'l x 12'h i size. The Auditor was being driven by an Audio Research VT-100 MKIII power amplifier with an Audio Research LS25MKII preamplifier using Wasatch cabling. As a result of this listening session, my opinion of this speaker is 180 degrees in opposition to Michel's statement when he said, "On harder hitting cuts, it fell flat on it's face, lacking dynamics on attacks." While I only had enough time to listen for half an hour, I came away feeling that the Auditor may have been the best monitor speaker that I had ever heard. I listened to a compilation disk which included a fabulous version of Nils Lofgren's "Keith Don't Go." This cut has some of the most exciting pop-rock guitar playing I have ever heard. I was able to hear deep into the recording mix and was astonished to hear the amazing dynamic range of the recording as Nils really lets go with his amazing guitar work, as portrayed through the Auditors. Never did I feel that on hard hitting cuts, it fell flat on its face. Quite the opposite, when the going got rough, I was surprised that the dynamic range of this speaker seemed unlimited within the frequency response of a monitor. That's another thing. When I closed my eyes, I could swear that I was listening to a full range speaker, the bass being that good. Perhaps the Audio Research electronics are a great match with this speaker, as it is extremely important to match a speaker to an amp.
I think that maybe the pair of Auditor's Micheal listened to were not broken in yet. When I auditioned the two speakers originally, I did not really listen to rock. However now that I have had the speakers a while I can tell you that the Auditor can do "Rock" music well. I was completely shocked at how loud this speaker will play.

I listened to "Alice in Chains" with these speakers just to see what would happen and I was amazed. The auditors never seemed like they were breaking up or that I had to lower the volume. This little speaker rocks.
When I was listening it was connected to Musical Fidelity A3.2 integrated amp with Harmonic pro 11 cables. I do believe however they recently got them on the floor, so they may not have been fully broken in, or even perhaps not broken it at all.

However, my coment about "fell flat on it's face", might be taken as perhaps a little extreme, I'm not used to conveying my listening in words. However at the time of listening, at medium volume level, when the dynamic kicked in, the feeling was of compression or perhaps the loudness did not increase appropriately.

On the oposite site, when playing louder, I never felt the speaker staining, and it seemed quite effortless.

Perhaps the break in period as something to do with it, or the electronics, again perharps it likes more juice that the 805 signature, or a combination of the two.

The funny thing is, I really wanted those speakers, I hate being mainstream, but the 805 sounded better "to me" in the end for the reasons I stated.

Now this brings up a couple of excellent points. This is a big purchase obviously. And it's so difficult to make a decision in 1/2 or even 2 hours. It takes time to really get aquaited with a speaker, and in a show room, it's hard to not be anxious while listening, and just get into the music, as opposed to listening for certain characteristics. That is typical of reviews in mags, where they go through a check list type of listening. That is one of the reason we should pay little attention to first listening impressions, and the oppinions of people who live with the product (if they have had exposure to other comparable products at least) is more significant.

Further, personal preferences are so subjective, it's very important to take it into consideration. In my case, the way the B&W involved me in the performance was more to my taste, I felt more present. To someone else, the sonus faber does the trick better. Now the hifi shop I go to is owned by a close friend, and so far they told me the sales are exactly half and half between the sonus faber and the B&W. It's just personal taste in the end, a characteristic you cant read about!

Like I said in my original comments, it's a heck of comparisson, with no clear winner before you go in, only after listening to both for some time can you make a choice.

Thank guy's for posting your personal findings above.